64746 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6880–5]

Final Reissuance of National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Storm Water Multi-Sector

General Permit for Industrial Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Final NPDES general

permit.

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrators

of EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and

10 are today reissuing EPA’s NPDES

Storm Water Multi-Sector General

Permit (MSGP). This general permit was

first issued on September 29, 1995 (60

FR 50804), and amended on February 9,

1996 (61 FR 5248), February 20, 1996

(61 FR 6412), September 24, 1996 (61

FR 50020), August 7, 1998 (63 FR

42534) and September 30, 1998 (63 FR

52430). The reissuance of the MSGP was

proposed by EPA on March 30, 2000 (65

FR 17010). Today’s final MSGP will

authorize the discharge of storm water

from industrial facilities consistent with

the terms of the permit.

DATES: This MSGP shall be effective on

October 30, 2000. This effective date is

necessary to provide dischargers with

the immediate opportunity to comply

with Clean Water Act requirements in

light of the expiration of the existing

MSGP on October 1, 2000. Deadlines for

submittal of notices of intent are

provided in Section VI.A.2 of this fact

sheet and Part 2.1 of the MSGP. Today’s

MSGP also provides additional dates for

compliance with the terms of the

permit.

ADDRESSES: The index to the

administrative record for the final

MSGP is available at the appropriate

Regional Office or from the EPA Water

Docket Office in Washington, DC. The

administrative record, including

documents immediately referenced in

this reissuance notice and applicable

documents used to support the original

issuance of the MSGP in 1995, are

stored at the EPA Water Docket Office

at the following address: Water Docket,

MC–4101, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW,

room EB57, Washington, DC 20460. The

records are available for inspection from

9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. For

appointments to examine any portion of

the administrative record, please call

the Water Docket Office at (202) 260–

3027. A reasonable fee may be charged

for copying. Specific record information

can also be made available at the

appropriate Regional Office upon

request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information on the final MSGP,

contact the appropriate EPA Regional

Office. The name, address and phone

number of the EPA Regional Storm

Water Coordinators are provided in

Section VI.F of this fact sheet.

Information is also available through the

Internet on EPA’s Office of Wastewater

Management website at http://

www.epa.gov/owm/sw.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following fact sheet provides

background information and

explanation for today’s notice of final

MSGP reissuance, including a summary

Response to Comments regarding the

comments which were received on the

proposed MSGP. The actual language of

the final MSGP appears after this fact

sheet.

Fact Sheet

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges

Associated with Industrial Activities in

General

B. Summary of Options for Controlling

Pollutants

C. The Federal/Municipal Partnership: The

Role of Municipal Operators of Large and

Medium Municipal Separate Storm

Sewer Systems

II. Organization of Final MSGP and Summary

of Changes From the 1995 MSGP and the

March 30, 2000 Proposed MSGP

III. Geographic Coverage of Final MSGP

IV. Categories of Facilities Covered by Final

MSGP

V. Limitations on Coverage

A. Storm Water Discharges Subject to

Effluent Guidelines Limitations,

Including New Source Performance

Standards

B Historic Preservation

C. Endangered Species

D. New Storm Water Discharges to Water

Quality-Impaired or Water QualityLimited Receiving Waters

E. Storm Water Discharges Subject to AntiDegradation Provisions of Water Quality

Standards

F. Storm Water Discharges Previously

Covered by an Individual Permit

G. Requiring Coverage Under an Individual

Permit or an Alternate General Permit

VI. Summary of Common Permit Conditions

A. Notification Requirements

1. Content of NOI

2. Deadlines

3. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

Operator Notification

4. Notice of Termination

5. Conditional Exclusion for No Exposure

B. Special Conditions

1. Prohibition of Non-storm Water

Discharges

2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of

Hazardous Substances and Oil

3. Co-located Industrial Facilities

4. Numeric Effluent Limitations

5. Compliance with Water Quality

Standards

C. Common Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

1. Pollution Prevention Team

2. Description of the Facility and Potential

Pollution Sources

3. Selection and Implementation of Storm

Water Controls

4. Deadlines

D. Special Requirements

1. Special Requirements for Storm Water

Discharges Associated With Industrial

Activity From Facilities Subject to

EPCRA Section 313 Requirements

2. Special Requirements for Storm Water

Discharges Associated With Industrial

Activity From Salt Storage Facilities

3. Consistency With Other Plans

E. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

1. Analytical Monitoring Requirements

2. Compliance Monitoring

3. Alternate Certification

4. Reporting and Retention Requirements

5. Sample Type

6. Representative Discharge

7. Sampling Waiver

8. Quarterly Visual Examination of Storm

Water Quality

F. Regional Offices

1. Notice of Intent Address

2. EPA Regional Office Addresses and

Contacts

VII. Cost Estimates For Common Permit

Requirements

VIII. Special Requirements for Discharges

Associated With Specific Industrial

Activities

IX. Summary of Responses to Comments on

the Proposed MSGP

X. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866)

XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I. Background

The Regional Administrators of EPA

Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are

today reissuing EPA’s NPDES Storm

Water Multi-Sector General Permit

(MSGP). The MSGP currently authorizes

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity for most areas of the

United States where the NPDES permit

program has not been delegated. The

MSGP was originally issued on

September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50804), and

amended on February 9, 1996 (61 FR

5248), February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6412),

September 24, 1996 (61 FR 50020),

August 7, 1998 (63 FR 42534) and

September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430). The

proposed reissuance of the MSGP

appeared in the Federal Register on

March 30, 2000 (65 FR 17010).

The 1995 MSGP was the culmination

of the group permit application process

described at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(2). A

group permit application was one of

three options for obtaining an NPDES

industrial storm water permit which

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64747

were provided by the 1990 storm water

permit application regulations (55 FR

48063). The 1990 regulations also

provided that industrial facilities could

apply for coverage under an existing

general NPDES permit or apply for an

individual permit. In 1992, EPA issued

a baseline general permit (57 FR 41175

and 57 FR 44412) to cover industrial

facilities which did not select the group

application option or submit an

application for an individual permit.

In response to the group application

option, EPA received applications from

approximately 1,200 groups

representing nearly all of the categories

of industrial facilities listed in the storm

water regulations at 40 CFR

122.26(b)(14). To facilitate permit

issuance for the group applications, EPA

consolidated the groups into 29

industrial sectors, with subsectors also

included in certain sectors as

appropriate.

In developing the requirements for the

1995 MSGP, EPA utilized and built

upon the storm water pollution control

requirements of the 1992 baseline

general permit. The baseline permit had

required a storm water pollution

prevention plan (SWPPP) with generic

best management practice (BMP)

requirements which applied to all

facilities covered by the permit. In

addition, certain categories of facilities

were required to monitor storm water

discharges based on EPA’s best

professional judgment concerning the

risks posed by the facilities.

The group permit applications

included information concerning the

specific types of operations which are

present at the different types of

industrial facilities, potential sources of

pollutants at the facilities, industryspecific BMPs which are available, and

monitoring data from the different types

of facilities. Using this information, EPA

developed SWPPP requirements for the

MSGP which consisted of the generic

requirements of the baseline permit plus

industry-specific requirements

developed from the group application

information. Also, the monitoring

requirements of the 1995 MSGP were

developed using the monitoring data

submitted with the group applications

rather than EPA’s best professional

judgment.

On September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430),

EPA terminated the baseline general

permit and required facilities which

were previously covered by the baseline

permit to seek coverage under the MSGP

(or submit an individual permit

application). EPA believed that the

MSGP, with its industry-specific

requirements, would provide improved

water quality benefits as compared to

the baseline permit.

For today’s reissuance of the MSGP,

EPA has re-evaluated the industryspecific requirements of the MSGP. In a

few instances, additional requirements

have been included based on new

information which has been obtained

since the original MSGP issuance in

1995. These changes are discussed in

more detail in Section VIII of this fact

sheet, and in the Response to

Comments. EPA also re-evaluated the

monitoring requirements of the existing

MSGP. However, after review of the

comments received from the public, and

the monitoring data received during the

term of the 1995 MSGP, EPA has

retained the same monitoring

requirements for the reissued MSGP as

were found in the 1995 MSGP.

A. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges

Associated With Industrial Activities in

General

The volume and quality of storm

water discharges associated with

industrial activity will depend on a

number of factors, including the

industrial activities occurring at the

facility, the nature of the precipitation,

and the degree of surface

imperviousness. A discussion of these

factors was provided in the fact sheet for

the original proposed MSGP (58 FR

61146 Nov. 19, 1993), and is not being

repeated here.

B. Summary of Options for Controlling

Pollutants

Pollutants in storm water discharges

from industrial plants may be reduced

using the following methods:

Eliminating pollution sources,

implementing BMPs to prevent

pollution, using traditional storm water

management practices, and providing

end-of-pipe treatment. A general

discussion of each of these was

included in the original proposed MSGP

(58 FR 61146, Nov. 19, 1993), and is not

being repeated here.

C. The Federal/Municipal Partnership:

The Role of Municipal Operators of

Large and Medium Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer Systems

A key issue in developing a workable

regulatory program for controlling

pollutants in storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity is the

proper use and coordination of limited

regulatory resources. This is especially

important when addressing the

appropriate role of municipal operators

of large and medium municipal separate

storm sewer systems in the control of

pollutants in storm water associated

with industrial activity which discharge

through municipal separate storm sewer

systems. The original proposed MSGP

discussed several key policy factors (see

58 FR 61146).

II. Organization of Final MSGP and

Summary of Changes From the 1995

MSGP and the March 30, 2000

Proposed MSGP

The organization of today’s final

MSGP has been revised from the 1995

MSGP to reduce the overall size of the

permit. In Part XI of the 1995 MSGP,

many requirements such as SWPPP and

monitoring requirements which were

common to each sector were repeated in

each sector, greatly adding to length of

the permit. For today’s reissuance, such

requirements are found only once in

expanded sections of the permit (Parts

4 and 5) which include requirements

common to each sector. Requirements

which are genuinely unique to a given

sector or subsector are found in Part 6

in the permit. Similarly, Section VIII of

the fact sheet for the 1995 MSGP

repeated certain explanatory

information in the discussions of sectorspecific requirements, and also included

considerable descriptive information

about the various sectors. To reduce the

length of today’s notice, most of this

information is not being repeated.

Section VIII of today’s fact sheet focuses

on the changes (if any) in the various

sectors. The reorganization and

reduction of duplication have reduced

the size of the permit by approximately

75%.

Also note that the section/paragraph

identification scheme of today’s final

MSGP has been modified from the 1995

MSGP. The original scheme utilized a

sometimes lengthy combination of

numbers, letters and Roman numerals

(in both upper and lower cases) which

many permittees found confusing.

Today’s reissuance identifies sections/

paragraphs, and hence permit

conditions, using numbers only, except

in Part 6 (which also incorporates the

sector letters from the 1995 MSGP for

consistency). Under the original permit,

only the last digit or letter of the

section/paragraph identifier appeared

with its accompanying section title/

paragraph, making it difficult to

determine where you were in the

permit. In today’s reissuance, the entire

string of identifying numbers is listed at

each section/paragraph to facilitate

recognizing where you are and in citing

and navigating through the permit. For

example, paragraph number 1.2.3.5 tells

you immediately that you are in Part 1,

section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraph 5;

whereas under the 1995 MSGP you

would only see an ‘‘e’’, thereby forcing

you to hunt back through the permit to

64748 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

determine that you were in Part I.B.3.e.

The exception to the numbering rule is

in Part 6, where the Sector letters from

the 1995 MSGP have been retained to

correspond to the sectors of industry

covered by the permit and make it easy

to tell that you are in a section of the

permit which has conditions which

only apply to a specific industrial

sector. For example, paragraph 6.F.3.4

immediately tells you that you are in

Part 6 and looking at conditions that

only apply to sector ‘‘F’’ facilities. In

some cases, requirements which

previously appeared in a single

paragraph are now found listed out as

separate individual items. The final

MSGP is also written in EPA’s ‘‘readable

regulations’’ style using terms like

‘‘you’’ and ‘‘your’’ in referring to

permittees, etc.

Following below is a list of the major

changes included in the proposed

MSGP of March 30, 2000 (as compared

to the 1995 MSGP) and retained in

today’s final MSGP. These changes are

discussed in more detail later in this

fact sheet.

1. Requirements for co-located

activities clarified (Part 1.2.1.1).

2. Incidental cooling tower mist

discharges included as an authorized

non-storm water discharge, subject to

certain requirements (Parts 1.2.2.2.13

and 4.4.2.3).

3. Eligibility provided for coverage of

inactive mining activities occurring on

Federal Lands where an operator has

not been identified (Part 1.2.3).

4. Clarified language for situations

where a discharge previously covered

by an individual permit can be covered

under today’s MSGP (Part 1.2.3.3).

5. Clarified/added language for

compliance with water quality

standards and requirements for followup actions if standards are exceeded

(Parts 1.2.3.5 and 3.3).

6. ESA and NHPA eligibility

requirements modified (Parts 1.2.3.6

and 1.2.3.7).

7. Eligibility requirements for

discharges to water quality impaired/

limited waterbodies added/clarified

(Part 1.2.3.8).

8. Clarified that discharges which do

not comply with anti-degradation

requirements are not authorized by the

permit (Part 1.2.3.9).

9. Deadline of 30 days for submission

of an NOT added (Part 1.4.2).

10. Opportunity for termination of

permit coverage based on the ‘‘no

exposure exemption’’ from the Phase II

storm water regulations (64 FR 68722,

12/8/99) added (Parts 1.5 and 11.4).

11. Notice of Intent requirements and

modified form (Part 2.2 and Addendum

D).

12. Permit will accommodate

electronic filing of NOIs, NOTs, or

DMRs, should these options become

available during the term of the permit

(Parts 2.3 and 7.1)

13. Prohibition on discharges of solid

materials and floating debris and

requirement to minimize off-site

tracking of materials and generation of

dust added (Part 4.2.7.2.3).

14. Requirement to include a copy of

the permit with the storm water

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) was

added (Part 4.7).

15. Special conditions for EPCRA 313

facilities were modified (Part 4.12).

16. Monitoring requirements

reorganized and additional clarification/

revisions on monitoring periods,

waivers, default minimum monitoring

for limitations added by State 401

certification, and reporting requirements

added (Part 5).

17. Manufacturing of fertilizer from

leather scraps (SIC 2873) moved from

Sector Z—Leather Tanning and

Finishing to Sector C—Chemical and

Allied Products (Table 1–1 and Part

6.C).

18. New effluent limitations

guidelines for landfills in Sectors K and

L included; the final guidelines were

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 2000 (65 FR 3007) (Parts

6.K.5 and 6.L.6).

19. Sector AD (Non-Classified

Facilities) language clarified to say that

facilities cannot choose coverage under

Sector AD, but can only be so assigned

by permitting authority (Part 6.AD).

20. Additional BMP requirements in

Sectors S, T, and Y added (Parts 6.S,

6.T, and 6.Y).

21. NOI to continue coverage under

the permit when it expires (without a

replacement permit in place) is not

required and the reapplication process

has been clarified (Part 9.2).

22. Process for EPA to remove

facilities from permit coverage clarified

(Part 9.12).

Following below is another list which

summarizes the provisions of today’s

final MSGP which differ from the

proposed MSGP of March 30, 2000.

1. Reference to ‘‘drinking fountain

water’’ removed from Part 1.2.2.2.3.

2. Part 1.2.3.3.2.1 of the proposed

MSGP was deleted. This requirement

had not allowed MSGP coverage for

facilities previously covered by another

permit, unless the other permit only

covered storm water and MSGP

authorized non-storm water discharges.

3. Part 2.2.3.6 revised to indicate that

the NOI must include the name of the

MS4 receiving the discharges only if it

is different from the permittee.

4. Part 4.9.3 revised to clarify the time

frame for implementation of revised

SWPPP.

5. Part 4.11 revised to require

permittees to provide a copy of their

SWPPP to the public when requested in

writing to do so.

6. Sector E coverage was modified for

consistency with the September 30,

1998 MSGP modification.

7. In Sector G, language was added

stating that non-storm water discharges

must be tested or evaluated; this change

ensures consistency with the 1995

MSGP. Also in Sector G, the definition

of ‘‘reclamation’’ was revised.

8. The title for Sector I was changed

to include ‘‘Refining.’’

9. Sector T revised for consistency

with 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ix)

concerning size of POTWs covered.

10. Section V.C. deleted the

requirement to consider species

proposed for listing as endangered or

threatened.

III. Geographic Coverage of Final

MSGP

The geographic coverage of today’s

final MSGP includes the following

areas:

EPA Region 1—for the States of

Maine, Massachusetts and New

Hampshire; for Indian Country lands

located in Massachusetts, Connecticut,

Rhode Island and Maine; and for

Federal facilities in the State of

Vermont.

EPA Region 2—for the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

EPA Region 3—for the District of

Columbia and Federal facilities in the

State of Delaware.

EPA Region 4—for Indian Country

lands located in the State of Florida.

EPA Region 6—for the State of New

Mexico; for Indian Country lands

located in the States of Louisiana, New

Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma (except

Navajo lands and Ute Mountain

Reservation lands); for oil and gas

facilities under SIC codes 1311, 1381,

1382, and 1389 in the State of Oklahoma

not on Indian Country lands; and oil

and gas facilities under SIC codes 1311,

1321, 1381, 1382, and 1389 in the State

of Texas not on Indian Country lands.

EPA Region 8—for Federal facilities in

the State of Colorado; for Indian

Country lands in Colorado, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and

Utah (except Goshute and Navajo

Reservation lands); for Ute Mountain

Reservation lands in Colorado and New

Mexico; and for Pine Ridge Reservation

lands in South Dakota and Nebraska.

EPA Region 9—for the State of

Arizona; for the Territories of Johnston

Atoll, American Samoa, Guam, the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64749

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana

Islands, Midway and Wake Islands; for

Indian Country lands located in

Arizona, 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, and the Fort McDermitt

Reservation in Oregon and Nevada.

EPA Region 10—for the State of Idaho;

for Indian Country lands located in

Alaska, Oregon (except Fort McDermitt

Reservation lands), Idaho (except Duck

Valley Reservation lands) and

Washington; and for Federal facilities in

Washington.

For several reasons, the geographic

area of coverage described above differs

from the area of coverage of the 1995

MSGP. Indian country in Vermont and

New Hampshire has been removed since

there are no Federally recognized tribes

in these States. Also, state NPDES

permit programs have since been

authorized in the States of South

Dakota, Louisiana, Oklahoma (except for

certain oil and gas facilities in

Oklahoma) and Texas (again except for

oil and gas facilities). In Oklahoma, EPA

maintains NPDES permitting authority

over oil and gas exploration and

production related industries, and

pipeline operations regulated by the

Oklahoma Corporation Commission

(See 61 FR 65049). Oklahoma received

NPDES program authorization only for

those discharges covered by the

authority of the Oklahoma Department

of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). In

Texas, EPA maintains NPDES

permitting authority over oil and gas

discharges regulated by the Texas

Railroad Commission (See 63 FR

51164). Texas received NPDES program

authorization only for those discharges

covered by the authority of the Texas

Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC).

Specific additional conditions

required in Region 6 as a result of a

State or Tribal CWA Section 401

certification have been added for New

Mexico, Oklahoma, and the Pueblos of

Isleta, Pojoaque, San Juan, and Sandia.

Numeric limitations for discharges in

Texas contained in the previous permit

pursuant to 31 TAC 319.22 and 319.23

have been continued in accordance with

40 CFR 122.44(d) and (l).

Federal facilities in Colorado, and

Indian country located in Colorado

(including the portion of the Ute

Mountain Reservation located in New

Mexico), North Dakota, South Dakota

(including the portion of the Pine Ridge

Reservation located in Nebraska), Utah

(except for the Goshute and Navajo

Reservation lands) and Wyoming were

not included in the 1995 MSGP, but are

included in today’s MSGP. Indian

country lands in Montana are not

included at this time due to a recent

court order. Prior to today, industrial

facilities in these areas were largely

covered under an extension of EPA’s

1992 baseline general permit for

industries (57 FR 41175).

Also, subsequent to the issuance of

the MSGP in 1995, coverage was

extended to the Island of Guam on

September 24, 1996 (61 FR 50020) and

the Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands on September 30, 1998

(63 FR 52430). Certification was not

received from Arizona in time for that

state to be included in this permit.

The 1995 MSGP was issued in the

State of Alaska, except Indian Country,

on February 9, 1996 (61 FR 5247).

Industrial facilities in Alaska outside of

Indian Country will continue to be

covered under the 1995 MSGP through

February 9, 2001. EPA will reissue the

permit for Alaska at a later date, and

will include any state-specific

modifications or additions or additions

applicable to parts 1 through 12 of this

permit as part of the State’s Clean Water

Act Section 401 or Coastal Zone

Management Act certification processes.

Lastly, today’s MSGP reissuance

differs from the March 30, 2000 MSGP

proposal in that the State of Florida

(except for Indian country) is not

included. This is a result of the recent

NPDES program delegation to the State

of Florida.

There are some areas where the

NPDES permit program has not been

delegated (such as Indian country in

states not listed above) where neither

the MSGP nor an alternate general

permit is available for authorization of

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity. However, only a very

small number of permittees exist in

such areas and individual permits are

issued as needed.

IV. Categories of Facilities Covered by

the Final MSGP

Today’s final MSGP authorizes storm

water discharges associated with

industrial activity from the categories of

facilities shown in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1.—SECTOR/SUBSECTORS COVERED BY THE FINAL MSGP

Subsector SIC code Activity represented

Sector A. Timber Products

1* ....................... 2421 ............................................ General Sawmills and Planning Mills.

2 ........................ 2491 ............................................ Wood Preserving.

3* ....................... 2411 ............................................ Log Storage and Handling.

4* ....................... 2426 ............................................ Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills.

2429 ............................................ Special Product Sawmills, Not Elsewhere Classified.

2431–2439 (except 2434) ........... Millwork, Veneer, Plywood, and Structural Wood.

2448, 2449 .................................. Wood Containers.

2451, 2452 .................................. Wood Buildings and Mobile Homes.

2493 ............................................ Reconstituted Wood Products.

2499 ............................................ Wood Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

Sector B. Paper and Allied Products Manufacturing

1 ........................ 2611 ............................................ Pulp Mills.

2 ........................ 2621 ............................................ Paper Mills.

3* ....................... 2631 ............................................ Paperboard Mills.

4 ........................ 2652–2657 .................................. Paperboard Containers and Boxes.

5 ........................ 2671–2679 .................................. Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, Except Containers and Boxes.

Sector C. Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing

1* ....................... 2812–2819 .................................. Industrial Inorganic Chemicals.

64750 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 1.—SECTOR/SUBSECTORS COVERED BY THE FINAL MSGP—Continued

Subsector SIC code Activity represented

2* ....................... 2821–2824 .................................. Plastics Materials and Synthetic Resins, Synthetic Rubber, Cellulosic and Other Manmade Fibers Except Glass.

3 ........................ 2833–2836 .................................. Medicinal chemicals and botanical products; pharmaceutical preparations,; invitro and

invivo diagnostic substances; biological products, except diagnostic substances.

4* ....................... 2841–2844 .................................. Soaps, Detergents, and Cleaning Preparations; Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet

Preparations.

5 ........................ 2851 ............................................ Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products.

6 ........................ 2861–2869 .................................. Industrial Organic Chemicals.

7* ....................... 2873–2879 .................................. Agricultural Chemicals, Including Facilities that Make Fertilizer Solely from Leather

Scraps and Leather Dust.

8 ........................ 2891–2899 .................................. Miscellaneous Chemical Products.

9 ........................ 3952 (limited to list) ..................... Inks and Paints, Including China Painting Enamels, India Ink, Drawing Ink, Platinum

Paints for Burnt Wood or Leather Work, Paints for China Painting, Artist’s Paints and

Artist’s Watercolors.

Sector D. Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials Manufacturers and Lubricant Manufacturers.

1* ....................... 2951, 2952 .................................. Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials.

2 ........................ 2992, 2999 .................................. Miscellaneous Products of Petroleum and Coal.

Sector E. Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing

1 ........................ 3211 ............................................ Flat Glass.

3221, 3229 .................................. Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown.

3231 ............................................ Glass Products Made of Purchased Glass.

3281 ............................................ Cut Stone and Stone Products.

3291–3292 .................................. Abrasive and Asbestos Products.

3296 ............................................ Mineral Wool.

3299 ............................................ Nonmetallic Mineral Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

2 ........................ 3241 ............................................ Hydraulic Cement.

3* ....................... 3251–3259 .................................. Structural Clay Products.

3261–3269 .................................. Pottery and Related Products.

3297 ............................................ Non-Clay Refractories.

4* ....................... 3271–3275 .................................. Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products.

3295 ............................................ Minerals and Earth’s, Ground, or Otherwise Treated.

Sector F. Primary Metals

1* ....................... 3312–3317 .................................. Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills.

2* ....................... 3321–3325 .................................. Iron and Steel Foundries.

3 ........................ 3331–3339 .................................. Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals.

4 ........................ 3341 ............................................ Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals.

5* ....................... 3351–3357 .................................. Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Nonferrous Metals.

6* ....................... 3363–3369 .................................. Nonferrous Foundries (Castings).

7 ........................ 3398, 3399 .................................. Miscellaneous Primary Metal Products.

Sector G. Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing)

1 ........................ 1011 ............................................ Iron Ores.

2* ....................... 1021 ............................................ Copper Ores.

3 ........................ 1031 ............................................ Lead and Zinc Ores.

4 ........................ 1041, 1044 .................................. Gold and Silver Ores.

5 ........................ 1061 ............................................ Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium.

6 ........................ 1081 ............................................ Metal Mining Services.

7 ........................ 1094, 1099 .................................. Miscellaneous Metal Ores.

Sector H. Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities

NA* .................... 1221–1241 .................................. Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities Sector.

Sector I. Oil and Gas Extraction and Refining

1* ....................... 1311 ............................................ Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas.

2 ........................ 1321 ............................................ Natural Gas Liquids.

3* ....................... 1381–1389 .................................. Oil and Gas Field Services.

4 ........................ 2911 ............................................ Petroleum refining.

Sector J. Mineral Mining and Dressing

1* ....................... 1411 ............................................ Dimension Stone.

1422–1429 .................................. Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Rip Rap.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64751

TABLE 1.—SECTOR/SUBSECTORS COVERED BY THE FINAL MSGP—Continued

Subsector SIC code Activity represented

1481 ............................................ Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels.

2* ....................... 1442, 1446 .................................. Sand and Gravel.

3 ........................ 1455, 1459 .................................. Clay, Ceramic, and Refractory Materials.

4 ........................ 1474–1479 .................................. Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining.

1499 ............................................ Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels.

Sector K. Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal Facilities

NA* .................... HZ ................................................ Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal.

Sector L. Landfills and Land Application Sites

NA* .................... LF ................................................ Landfills, Land Application Sites and Open Dumps.

Sector M. Automobile Salvage Yards

NA* .................... 5015 ............................................ Automobile Salvage Yards.

Sector N. Scrap Recycling Facilities

NA* .................... 5093 ............................................ Scrap Recycling Facilities.

Sector O. Steam Electric Generating Facilities

NA* .................... SE ................................................ Steam Electric Generating Facilities.

Sector P. Land Transportation

1 ........................ 4011, 4013 .................................. Railroad Transportation.

2 ........................ 4111–4173 .................................. Local and Highway Passenger Transportation.

3 ........................ 4212–4231 .................................. Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing.

4 ........................ 4311 ............................................ United States Postal Service.

5 ........................ 5171 ............................................ Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals.

Sector Q. Water Transportation

NA* .................... 4412–4499 .................................. Water Transportation.

Sector R. Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards

NA ..................... 3731, 3732 .................................. Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards.

Sector S. Air Transportation Facilities

NA* .................... 4512–4581 .................................. Air Transportation Facilities.

Sector T. Treatment Works

NA* .................... TW ............................................... Treatment Works.

Sector U. Food and Kindred Products

1 ........................ 2011–2015 .................................. Meat Products.

2 ........................ 2021–2026 .................................. Dairy Products.

3 ........................ 2032 ............................................ Canned, Frozen and Preserved Fruits, Vegetables and Food Specialties.

4* ....................... 2041–2048 .................................. Grain Mill Products.

5 ........................ 2051–2053 .................................. Bakery Products.

6 ........................ 2061–2068 .................................. Sugar and Confectionery Products.

7* ....................... 2074–2079 .................................. Fats and Oils.

8 ........................ 2082–2087 .................................. Beverages.

9 ........................ 2091–2099 .................................. Miscellaneous Food Preparations and Kindred Products.

2111–2141 .................................. Tobacco Products.

Sector V. Textile Mills, Apparel, and Other Fabric Product Manufacturing

1 ........................ 2211–2299 .................................. Textile Mill Products.

2 ........................ 2311–2399 .................................. Apparel and Other Finished Products Made From Fabrics and Similar Materials.

3131–3199 (except 3111) ........... Leather Products.

64752 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 1.—SECTOR/SUBSECTORS COVERED BY THE FINAL MSGP—Continued

Subsector SIC code Activity represented

Sector W. Furniture and Fixtures

NA ..................... 2511–2599 .................................. Furniture and Fixtures.

2434 ............................................ Wood Kitchen Cabinets.

Sector X. Printing and Publishing

NA ..................... 2711–2796 .................................. Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries.

Sector Y. Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries

1* ....................... 3011 ............................................ Tires and Inner Tubes.

3021 ............................................ Rubber and Plastics Footwear.

3052, 3053 .................................. Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing Devices and Rubber and Plastics Hose and Belting.

3061, 3069 .................................. Fabricated Rubber Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

2 ........................ 3081–3089 .................................. Miscellaneous Plastics Products.

3931 ............................................ Musical Instruments.

3942–3949 .................................. Dolls, Toys, Games and Sporting and Athletic Goods.

3951–3955 (except 3952 as

specified in Sector C).

Pens, Pencils, and Other Artists’ Materials.

3961, 3965 .................................. Costume Jewelry, Costume Novelties, Buttons, and Miscellaneous Notions, Except Precious Metal.

3991–3999 .................................. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.

Sector Z. Leather Tanning and Finishing

NA ..................... 3111 ............................................ Leather Tanning and Finishing.

Sector AA. Fabricated Metal Products

1* ....................... 3411–3499 .................................. Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment and Cutting,

Engraving and Allied Services.

3911–3915 .................................. Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Ware.

2* ....................... 3479 ............................................ Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services.

Sector AB. Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial Machinery

NA ..................... 3511–3599 (except 3571–3579) Industrial and Commercial Machinery (except Computer and Office Equipment—see Sector AC).

NA ..................... 3711–3799 (except 3731, 3732) Transportation Equipment (except Ship and Boat Building and Repairing—see Sector R).

Sector AC. Electronic, Electrical, Photographic and Optical Goods

NA ..................... 3612–3699 .................................. Electronic, Electrical Equipment and Components, Except Computer Equipment.

3812–3873 .................................. Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instrument; Photographic and Optical Goods,

Watches and Clocks.

3571–3579 .................................. Computer and Office Equipment.

Sector AD. Reserved for Facilities Not Covered Under Other Sectors and Designated by the Director

* Denotes subsector with analytical (chemical) monitoring requirements.

NA indicates those industry sectors in which subdivision into subsectors was determined to be not applicable.

The final MSGP modification of

September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430)

expanded the coverage of the 1995

MSGP to include a small number of

categories of facilities which had been

covered by the 1992 baseline industrial

general permit but excluded from the

MSGP. In Table 1 above, these

categories have been included in the

appropriate sectors/subsectors of the

MSGP as determined by the September

30, 1998 modification.

With the September 30, 1998

modification, EPA believes that the

MSGP now covers all of the categories

of industrial facilities which may

discharge storm water associated with

industrial activity as defined at 40 CFR

122.26(b)(14) (except construction

activities disturbing five or more acres

which are permitted separately).

However, the September 30, 1998

modification also added another sector

to the MSGP (Sector AD) to cover any

inadvertent omissions. EPA has retained

Sector AD in today’s reissued MSGP.

Sector AD is further intended to

provide a readily available means for

covering many of the storm water

facilities which are designated for

permitting in accordance with NPDES

regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(g)(1)(i).

These regulations provide that permit

applications may be required within 180

days of notice for any discharges which

contribute to a violation of a water

quality standard, or are determined to

be significant sources of pollutants.

EPA also recognizes that a new North

American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) was recently adopted

by the Office of Management and

Budget (62 FR 17288, April 9, 1997).

NAICS replaces the 1987 standard

industrial classification (SIC) code

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64753

system for the collection of statistical

economic data. However, the use of the

new system for nonstatistical purposes

is optional. EPA considered the use of

NAICS for the today’s MSGP reissuance,

but elected to retain the 1987 SIC code

system since the storm water regulations

(40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)) reference the

previous system and this system has

generally proven to be adequate for

identifying the facilities covered by

storm water regulations. EPA will

consider transitioning to the new NAICS

system in future rule making.

V. Limitations on Coverage

A. Storm Water Discharges Subject to

Effluent Guideline Limitations,

Including New Source Performance

Standards

The general prohibition on coverage

of storm water subject to an effluent

guideline limitation in the 1995 MSGP

has been retained in today’s MSGP

reissuance. Only those storm water

discharges subject to the following

effluent guidelines are eligible for

coverage (provided they meet all other

eligibility requirements):

TABLE 2.—EFFLUENT GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO DISCHARGES THAT MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR PERMIT COVERAGE

Effluent guideline

New Source

performance

standards included in effluent guidelines?

Sectors with affected facilities

Runoff from material storage piles at cement manufacturing facilities [40 CFR Part 411 Subpart C (established February 23, 1977)].Yes E

Contaminated runoff from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities [40 CFR Part 418 Subpart A (established April 8, 1974)].Yes C

Coal pile runoff at steam electric generating facilities [40 CFR Part 423 (established November 19, 1982)] Yes O

Discharges resulting from spray down or intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage areas [40 CFR

Part 429, Subpart I (established January 26, 1981)].

Yes A

Mine dewatering discharges at crushed stone mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart B] ...................................... No J

Mine dewatering discharges at construction sand and gravel mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart C] .............. No J

Mine dewatering discharges at industrial sand mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart D] ..................................... No J

Runoff from asphalt emulsion facilities [40 CFR Part 443 Subpart A (established July 24, 1975)]. ................ Yes D

Runoff from landfills, [40 CFR Part 445, Subpart A and B (established February 2, 2000.] ........................... Yes K & L

Section 306 of the Clean Water Act

(CWA) requires EPA to develop

performance standards for all new

sources described in that section. These

standards apply to all facilities which go

into operation after the date the

standards are promulgated. Section

511(c) of the CWA requires the Agency

to comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior

to issuance of a permit under the

authority of Section 402 of the CWA to

facilities defined as a new source under

Section 306.

The fact sheet for the 1995 MSGP

described a process for ensuring

compliance with NEPA for the MSGP

(60 FR 50809). This process, which is

repeated below, has been retained for

the reissued MSGP. Additional

guidance is found in a new Addendum

C to the final MSGP.

Facilities which are subject to the

performance standards for new sources

as described in this section of the fact

sheet must provide EPA with an

Environmental Information Document

pursuant to 40 CFR 6.101 prior to

seeking coverage under this permit. This

information shall be used by the Agency

to evaluate the facility under the

requirements of NEPA in an

Environmental Review. The Agency will

make a final decision regarding the

direct or indirect impact of the

discharge. The Agency will follow all

administrative procedures required in

this process. The permittee must obtain

a copy of the Agency’s final finding

prior to the submission of a Notice of

Intent to be covered by this general

permit. In order to maintain eligibility,

the permittee must implement any

mitigation required of the facility as a

result of the NEPA review process.

Failure to implement mitigation

measures upon which the Agency’s

NEPA finding is based is grounds for

termination of permit coverage. In this

way, EPA has established a procedure

which allows for the appropriate review

procedures to be completed by this

Agency prior to the issuance of a permit

under Section 402 of the CWA to an

operator of a facility subject to the new

source performance standards of Section

306 of the CWA. EPA believes that it has

fulfilled its requirements under NEPA

for this Federal action under Section

402 of the CWA.

B. Historic Preservation

The National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to

take into account the effects of Federal

undertakings, including undertakings

on historic properties that are either

listed on, or eligible for listing on, the

National Register of Historic Places. The

term ‘‘Federal undertaking’’ is defined

in the existing NHPA regulations to

include any project, activity, or program

under the direct or indirect jurisdiction

of a Federal agency that can result in

changes in the character or use of

historic properties, if any such historic

properties are located in the area of

potential effects for that project, activity,

or program. See 36 CFR 802(o). Historic

properties are defined in the NHPA

regulations to include prehistoric or

historic districts, sites, buildings,

structures, or objects that are included

in, or are eligible for inclusion in, the

National Register of Historic Places. See

36 CFR 802(e).

Federal undertakings include EPA’s

issuance of general NPDES permits. In

light of NHPA requirements, EPA

included a provision in the eligibility

requirements of the 1995 MSGP for the

consideration of the effects to historic

properties. That provision provided that

an applicant is eligible for permit

coverage only if: (1) the applicant’s

storm water discharges and BMPs to

control storm water runoff do not affect

a historic property, or (2) the applicant

has obtained, and is in compliance with,

a written agreement between the

applicant and the State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) that

outlines all measures to be taken by the

applicant to mitigate or prevent adverse

effects to the historic property. See Part

I.B.6, 60 FR 51112 (September 29, 1995).

When applying for permit coverage,

applicants were required to certify in

64754 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

the NOI that they are in compliance

with the Part I.B.6 eligibility

requirements. Provided there are no

other factors limiting permit eligibility,

MSGP coverage was then granted 48

hours after the postmark on the

envelope used to mail the NOI.

The September 30, 1998 modification

included two revisions of the original

MSGP with respect to historic

properties. First, EPA amended the

original Part I.B.6.(ii) to include a

reference to Tribal Historic Preservation

Officers (THPOs) because MSGP

coverage extends to Tribal lands and in

recognition of the central role Tribal

governments play in the protection of

historic resources. Second, EPA

included NHPA guidance and a list of

SHPO and THPO addresses in a new

Addendum I to the MSGP to assist

applicants with the certification process

for permit eligibility under this

condition.

For today’s MSGP reissuance, EPA

has modified slightly the requirements

of the first option for obtaining permit

coverage to enhance the protection of

historic properties. Permit coverage is

only available if storm water and

allowable non-storm water discharges

and ‘‘discharge-related activities’’ do not

affect historic properties. ‘‘Dischargerelated activities’’ are defined to include

activities which cause, contribute to, or

result in storm water and allowable nonstorm water point source discharges,

and measures such as the siting,

construction and operation of BMPs to

control, reduce or prevent pollution in

the discharges. Discharge-related

activities are included to ensure

compliance with NHPA requirements to

consider the effects of activities which

are related to the activity which is

permitted, i.e., the storm water and nonstorm water discharges. Because this

change was minor, EPA is relying on its

1995 and 1998 consultations with the

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation as its basis for reissuance

of this permit.

Also, as discussed in Section VI.A.1

below, EPA intends to modify,

contingent upon Office of Management

and Budget review and approval, the

Notice of Intent form to require that

operators identify which of the above

two options they are using to ensure

eligibility for permit coverage under the

MSGP. The NHPA guidance has also

been modified to reflect the above

pending changes, and appears in

Addendum B in today’s notice rather

than Addendum I. Until the revised

form is approved and issued, the current

form (with minor clarifications) remains

in effect.

Facilities seeking coverage under

today’s MSGP which cannot certify

compliance with the NHPA

requirements must submit individual

permit applications to the permitting

authority. For facilities already covered

by the existing MSGP, the deadline for

the individual applications is the same

as that for NOIs requesting coverage

under the reissued MSGP (December 29,

2000).

C. Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of

1973 requires Federal Agencies such as

EPA to ensure, in consultation with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

and the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) (also known

collectively as the ‘‘Services’’), that any

actions authorized, funded, or carried

out by the Agency (e.g., EPA issued

NPDES permits authorizing discharges

to waters of the United States) are not

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any Federally-listed

endangered or threatened species or

adversely modify or destroy critical

habitat of such species (see 16 U.S.C.

1536(a)(2), 50 CFR 402 and 40 CFR

122.49(c)).

For the 1995 MSGP, EPA conducted

formal consultation with the Services

which resulted in a joint Service

biological opinion issued by the FWS on

March 31, 1995, and by the NMFS on

April 5, 1995, which concluded that the

issuance and operation of the MSGP

was not likely to jeopardize the

existence of any listed endangered or

threatened species, or result in the

adverse modification or destruction of

any critical habitat.

The 1995 MSGP contained a number

of conditions to protect listed species

and critical habitat. Permit coverage was

provided only where:

• The storm water discharge(s), and

the construction of BMPs to control

storm water runoff, were not likely to

jeopardize species identified in

Addendum H of the permit; or

• The applicant’s activity had

received previous authorization under

the Endangered Species Act and

established an environmental baseline

that was unchanged; or,

• The applicant was implementing

appropriate measures as required by the

Director to address jeopardy.

For today’s MSGP reissuance, EPA

has modified the ESA-related

requirements for obtaining permit

coverage to enhance the protection of

listed species. First, permit coverage is

only available if storm water and

allowable non-storm water discharges

and ‘‘discharge-related activities’’ result

in no jeopardy to listed species.

‘‘Discharge-related activities’’ are

defined to include activities which

cause, contribute to or result in storm

water and allowable non-storm water

point source discharges, and measures

such as the siting, construction and

operation of BMPs to control, reduce or

prevent pollution in the discharges.

Discharge-related activities are included

for compliance with ESA requirements

to consider the effects of activities

which are related to the activity which

is permitted, i.e., the storm water and

non-storm water discharges.

In addition, operators seeking

coverage under the reissued MSGP must

certify that they are eligible for coverage

under one of the following five options

which are provided in Parts 1.2.3.6.3.1

through 5 of the permit:

1. No endangered or threatened

species or critical habitat are in

proximity to the facility or the point

where authorized discharges reach the

receiving water; or

2. In the course of a separate federal

action involving the facility (e.g., EPA

processing request for an individual

NPDES permit, issuance of a CWA

Section 404 wetlands dredge and fill

permit, etc.), formal or informal

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife

Service and/or the National Marine

Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the

ESA has been concluded and that

consultation:

(a) addressed the effects of the storm

water and allowable non-storm water

discharges and discharge-related

activities on listed species and critical

habitat and

(b) the consultation resulted in either

a no jeopardy opinion or a written

concurrence by the Service(s) on a

finding that the storm water and

allowable non-storm water discharges

and discharge-related activities are not

likely to jeopardize listed species or

critical habitat; or

3. The activities are authorized under

Section 10 of the ESA and that

authorization addresses the effects of

the storm water and allowable nonstorm water discharges and dischargerelated activities on listed species and

critical habitat; or

4. Using due diligence, the operator

has evaluated the effects of the storm

water discharges, allowable non-storm

water discharges, and discharge-related

activities on listed endangered or

threatened species and critical habitat

and does not have reason to believe

listed species or critical habitat would

be jeopardized; or

5. The storm water and allowable

non-storm water discharges and

discharge-related activities were already

addressed in another operator’s

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64755

certification of eligibility under Part

1.2.3.6.3.1 through 1.2.3.6.3.4 which

included the facility’s activities. By

certifying eligibility under this Part, a

permittee agrees to comply with any

measures or controls upon which the

other operator’s certification was based.

The first four options listed above are

similar to the eligibility provisions of

the 1995 MSGP. Option 5 was added to

account for situations such as an airport

facility where one operator (e.g., the

airport authority) may have covered the

entire airport through its certification.

Option 5 allows other operators to take

advantage of such a certification

without repeating the reviews

conducted by the first operator. Option

1 applies to operators who are not

jeopardizing endangered species

because listed species simply are not in

proximity to their facility. Option 4

applies to operators who have

endangered species nearby and must

look more closely at potential jeopardy

and may need to adopt measures to

reduce the risk of jeopardy to listed

species or critical habitat. The provision

of the two options to determine that a

facility is unlikely to jeopardize listed

species, coupled with the pending new

NOI requirement to indicate whether or

not the Service was contacted in making

the determination, will also allow for

better oversight of the permit. Under the

1995 permit, there was no way to tell

from the NOI information whether the

decision on eligibility was due to no

species in the county, a discussion with

the Service, or a simple unilateral

decision by the operator.

Addendum H of the 1995 MSGP

provided instructions to assist

permittees in determining whether they

met the permit’s ESA-related eligibility

requirements. For today’s reissued

MSGP, this guidance has been updated

to reflect the above requirements and

appears as Addendum A. As noted in

Section VI.A.1 below, EPA intends to

modify the Notice of Intent form to

conform with new ESA requirements

discussed above.

Addendum H of the 1995 MSGP

contained a list of proposed and listed

endangered and threatened species that

could be jeopardized by the discharges

and measures to control pollutants in

the discharges. EPA reinitiated and

completed formal consultation with the

Services for the September 30, 1998

modification of the MSGP. As a result

of this consultation and in response to

public comments on the modification,

EPA updated the species list in

Addendum H to include species that

were listed or proposed for listing since

the Addendum H list was originally

compiled on March 31, 1995. EPA also

decided to expand the list to include all

of the terrestrial (i.e., non-aquatic) listed

and proposed species in recognition that

those species may be impacted by

permitted activities such as the

construction and operation of the BMPs.

The September 30, 1998 MSGP

modification included the species list

updated as of July 8, 1998 (63 FR

52494). The species list is also being

updated on a regular basis and an

electronic copy of the list is available at

the Office of Wastewater Management

website at ‘‘http://www.epa.gov/owm/

esalst2.htm’’. The information may also

be obtained by contacting the Services.

The permittee is responsible for

obtaining the updated information.

Based on comments received on the

proposed MSGP on March 30, 2000 (65

FR 17010), the final permit requires

facility operators to consider only listed

endangered or threatened species, and

not species proposed to be listed.

Further explanation for the change can

be found in Section IX of this notice.

On August 10, 2000, EPA initiated

informal consultation with FWS and

NMFS on EPA’s finding of no likelihood

of adverse effect on threatened and

endangered species and critical habitat

resulting from issuance of MSGP–2000.

On September 22, 2000 FWS concurred

with EPA’s finding.

To be eligible for coverage under

today’s reissued MSGP, facilities must

review the updated list of species and

their locations in conjunction with the

Addendum A instructions for

completing the application

requirements under this permit. If an

applicant determines that none of the

species identified in the updated

species list is found in the county in

which the facility is located, then there

is a likelihood of no jeopardy and they

are eligible for permit coverage.

Applicants must then certify that their

storm water and allowable non-storm

water discharges, and their dischargerelated activities, are not likely to

jeopardize species and will be granted

MSGP permit coverage 48 hours after

the date of the postmark on the

envelope used to mail the NOI form,

provided there are no other factors

limiting permit eligibility.

If listed species are located in the

same county as the facility seeking

MSGP coverage, then the applicant must

determine whether the species are in

proximity to the storm water or

allowable non-storm water discharges or

discharge-related activities at the

facility. A species is in proximity to a

storm water or allowable non-storm

water discharge when the species is

located in the path or down gradient

area through which or over which the

point source discharge flows from

industrial activities to the point of

discharge into the receiving water, and

once discharged into the receiving

water, in the immediate vicinity of, or

nearby, the discharge point. A species is

also in proximity if it is located in the

area of a site where discharge-related

activities occur. If an applicant

determines there are no species in

proximity to the storm water or

allowable non-storm water discharges,

or discharge-related activities, then

there is no likelihood of jeopardizing

the species and the applicant is eligible

for permit coverage.

If species are in proximity to the

storm water or allowable non-storm

water discharges or discharge-related

activities, as long as they have been

considered as part of a previous ESA

authorization of the applicant’s activity,

and the environmental baseline

established in that authorization is

unchanged, the applicant may be

covered under the permit. The

environmental baseline generally

includes the past and present impacts of

all Federal, state and private actions that

were occurring at the time the initial

NPDES authorization and current ESA

section 7 action by EPA or any other

federal agency was taken. Therefore, if

a permit applicant has received

previous authorization and nothing has

changed or been added to the

environmental baseline established in

the previous authorization, then

coverage under this permit will be

provided.

In the absence of such previous

authorization, if species identified in

the updated species list are in proximity

to the discharges or discharge-related

activities, then the applicant must

determine whether there is any likely

jeopardy to the species. This is done by

the applicant conducting a further

examination or investigation, or an

alternative procedure, as described in

the instructions in Addendum A of the

permit. If the applicant determines that

there is no likely jeopardy to the

species, then the applicant is eligible for

permit coverage. If the applicant

determines that there likely is, or will

likely be any jeopardy, then the

applicant is not eligible for MSGP

coverage unless or until he or she can

meet one of the other eligibility

conditions.

All dischargers applying for coverage

under the MSGP must provide in the

application information on the Notice of

Intent form: (1) A determination as to

whether there are any listed species in

proximity to the storm water or

allowable non-storm water discharges or

discharge related activity, and (2) (when

64756 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

EPA receives approval from the Office

of Management and Budget and issues

the revised form) an indication of which

option under Part 1.2.3.6.3 of the MSGP

they claim eligibility for permit

coverage, and (3) a certification that

their storm water and allowable nonstorm water discharges and dischargerelated activities are not likely to

jeopardize listed species, or are

otherwise eligible for coverage due to a

previous authorization under the ESA.

Coverage is contingent upon the

applicant’s providing truthful

information concerning certification and

abiding by any conditions imposed by

the permit.

Dischargers who cannot determine if

they meet one of the endangered species

eligibility criteria cannot sign the

certification to gain coverage under the

MSGP and must apply to EPA for an

individual NPDES storm water permit.

For facilities already covered by the

1995 MSGP, the deadline for the

individual applications is the same as

that for NOIs requesting coverage under

the reissued MSGP (December 29, 2000).

As appropriate, EPA will conduct ESA

section 7 consultation when issuing

such individual permits.

Regardless of the above conditions,

EPA may require that a permittee apply

for an individual NPDES permit on the

basis of possible jeopardy to species or

critical habitats. Where there are

concerns that coverage for a particular

discharger is not sufficiently protective

of listed species, the Services (as well as

any other interested parties) may

petition EPA to require that the

discharger obtain an individual NPDES

permit and conduct an individual

section 7 consultation as appropriate.

In addition, the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries for the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, or his/her authorized

representative, or the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (as well as any other

interested parties) may petition EPA to

require that a permittee obtain an

individual NPDES permit. The

permittee is also required to make the

SWPPP, annual site compliance

inspection report, or other information

available upon request to the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries for the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, or his/her authorized

representative, or the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Regional Director, or

his/her authorized representative.

These mechanisms allow for the

broadest and most efficient coverage for

the permittee while still providing for

the most efficient protection of

endangered species. They significantly

reduce the number of dischargers that

must be considered individually and

therefore allow the Agency and the

Services to focus their resources on

those discharges that are indeed likely

to jeopardize listed species.

Straightforward mechanisms such as

these allow applicants more immediate

access to permit coverage, and

eliminates ‘‘permit limbo’’ for the

greatest number of permitted discharges.

At the same time it is more protective

of endangered species because it allows

both agencies to focus on the real

problems, and thus, provide endangered

species protection in a more expeditious

manner.

D. New Storm Water Discharges to

Water Quality-Impaired or Water

Quality-Limited Receiving Waters

Today’s final MSGP includes a new

provision (Part 1.2.3.8) which

establishes eligibility conditions with

regard to discharges to water qualitylimited or water quality-impaired

waters. For the purposes of this permit,

‘‘water quality-impaired’’ refers to a

stream, lake, estuary, etc. that is not

currently meeting its assigned water

quality standards. These waters are also

referred to as ‘‘303(d) waters’’ due to the

requirement under that section of the

CWA for States to periodically list all

state waters that are not meeting their

water quality standards. ‘‘Water qualitylimited waters’’ refers to waterbodies for

which a State had to develop individual

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), a

tool which helps waterbodies meet their

water quality standards. A TMDL is a

calculation of the maximum amount of

a pollutant that a waterbody can receive

and still meet water quality standards,

and an allocation of that amount to the

pollutant’s sources. Water quality

standards are set by States, Territories,

and Tribes. They identify the uses for

each waterbody, for example, drinking

water supply, contact recreation

(swimming), and aquatic life support

(fishing), and the scientific criteria to

support that use. The CWA, section 303,

establishes the water quality standards

and TMDL programs.

Prior to submitting a Notice of Intent,

any new discharger (see 40 CFR 122.2)

to a 303(d) waterbody must be able to

demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR

122.4(i). In essence, you are a new

discharger if your facility started

discharging after August 13, 1979 and

your storm water was not previously

permitted. Any discharger to a

waterbody for which there is an

approved TMDL must confirm that the

TMDL allocated a portion of the load for

storm water point source discharges.

These provisions apply only to

discharges containing the pollutant(s)

for which the waterbody is impaired or

the TMDL developed.

Part 1.2.3.8.1 (which applies to new

storm water discharges and not to

existing discharges) is designed to better

ensure compliance with NPDES

regulations at 40 CFR 122.4(i), which

include certain special requirements for

new discharges into impaired

waterbodies. Lists of impaired

waterbodies (sometimes referred to as

303(d) waterbodies) may be obtained

from appropriate State environmental

offices or their internet sites. NPDES

regulations at 40 CFR 122.4(i) prohibit

discharges unless it can be shown that:

1. There are sufficient remaining pollutant

load allocations to allow for the discharge;

and

2. The existing dischargers into that

segment are subject to compliance schedules

designed to bring the segments into

compliance with applicable water quality

standards.

Part 1.2.3.8.2 (which applies to both

new and existing storm water

discharges) is designed to better ensure

compliance with NPDES regulations at

40 CFR 122.4(d), which requires

compliance with State water quality

standards. The eligibility condition

prohibits coverage of new or existing

discharges of a particular pollutant

where there is a TMDL, unless the

discharge is consistent with the TMDL.

Lists of waterbodies with TMDLs may

be obtained from appropriate State

environmental offices or their internet

sites and from EPA’s TMDL internet site

at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/

index.html.

E. Storm Water Discharges Subject to

Anti-Degradation Provisions of Water

Quality Standards

Part 1.2.3.9 of today’s final MSGP

includes a new provision which

clarifies that discharges which do not

comply with applicable antidegradation provisions of State water

quality standards are not eligible for

coverage under the MSGP. This

eligibility condition is designed to better

ensure compliance with NPDES

regulations at 40 CFR 122.4(d), which

requires compliance with State water

quality standards. Anti-degradation

provisions may be obtained from the

appropriate State environmental office

or their internet sites.

F. Storm Water Discharges Previously

Covered by an Individual Permit

The 1995 MSGP contained general

prohibitions on coverage where a

discharge was covered by another

NPDES permit (Part I.B.3.d) and where

a permit had been terminated other than

at the request of the permittee (Part

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64757

I.B.3.e.). It was therefore possible to

obtain coverage by requesting

termination of an individual permit and

then submitting an NOI for coverage

under the MSGP. This could be

desirable from both the discharger’s and

EPA’s perspective for a variety of

reasons, for example, where a

wastewater permit included storm water

outfalls, but the wastewater outfalls had

been eliminated. Being able to use the

general permit would reduce the

application cost to the permittee and the

administrative burden of permit

issuance to the Agency. Today’s permit

clarifies the conditions under which

transfer from an individual permit to

this general permit would be acceptable

(Part 1.2.3.3.2).

In order to avoid conflict with the

anti-backsliding provisions of the CWA,

transfer from an individual permit to the

MSGP will only be allowed where both

of the following conditions are met:

• The individual permit did not

contain numeric water quality-based

effluent limitations developed for the

storm water component of the

discharge; and

• The permittee includes any specific

BMPs for storm water required under

the individual permit in their storm

water pollution prevention plan.

Implementation of a comprehensive

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

for the entire facility (as opposed to

selected outfalls in an individual

permit) and compliance with all other

conditions of the MSGP is deemed to be

at least as stringent a technology-based

permit limit as the conditions of the

individual permit. This assumption is

only made where the previous permit

did not contain any specific water

quality-based effluent limitations on

storm water discharges (e.g., storm

water contained high levels of zinc and

the individual permit contained a zinc

limit developed to ensure compliance

with the State water quality criteria).

G. Requiring Coverage Under an

Individual Permit or an Alternate

General Permit

Part 9.12 of today’s final MSGP

provides that EPA may require an

individual permit or coverage under a

separate general permit instead of

today’s MSGP. This is in accord with

NPDES regulations at 40 CFR

122.28(b)(3). These regulations also

provide that any interested party may

petition EPA to take such an action. The

issuance of the individual permit or

alternate general permit would be in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 124 and

would provide for public comment and

appeal of any final permit decision. The

circumstances in which such an action

would be taken are set forth at 40 CFR

122.28(b)(3).

VI. Summary of Common Permit

Conditions

The following section describes the

permit conditions common to

discharges from all the industrial

activities covered by today’s final

MSGP. These conditions are largely the

same as the conditions of the 1995

MSGP.

A. Notification Requirements

General permits for storm water

discharges associated with industrial

activity must require the submission of

a Notice of Intent (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 final

MSGP establishes NOI requirements.

These requirements apply to facilities

currently covered by the 1995 MSGP, as

well as new facilities seeking coverage.

EPA made minor modifications to the

NOI form to allow the discharger, the

Agency and the public to more easily

determine sector-specific conditions

that will apply to the facility. Further

modifications proposed on March 30,

2000 (65 FR 17010) require review and

approval by the Office of Management

and Budget under the Paperwork

Reduction Act. EPA will have all

appropriate approvals in place prior to

requiring the use of the expanded NOI

form. In the interim the NOI form with

the minor modifications, contained in

this notice, is in effect.

The information requirements of the

revised NOI form are described below:

1. Content of NOI

a. An indication of which permit the

operator is filing the NOI for (e.g., a

facility in New Hampshire would be

filing for coverage under permit

NHR05*###, a facility located on Navajo

Reservation lands in New Mexico under

the AZR05*##I permit, a private

contractor operating a federal facility in

Colorado that is not located on Indian

Country lands under the COR05*##F

permit, etc.);

b. The name, address, and telephone

number of the operator filing the NOI

for permit coverage;

c. An indication of whether the owner

of the site is a Federal, State, Tribal,

private, or other public entity;

d. The name (or other identifier),

address, county, and latitude/longitude

of the facility for which the NOI is

submitted (latitude/longitude will be

accepted in either degree-minute-second

or decimal format);

e. An indication of whether the

facility is located on Indian Country

lands;

f. An indication of whether the

facility is a federal facility operated by

the federal government;

g. The name of the receiving water(s);

h. The name of the municipal

operator if the discharge is through a

municipal separate storm sewer system

prior to discharge to a water of the U.S.;

i. Up to four 4-digit Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that

best represent the principal products

produced or services rendered,

including hazardous waste treatment,

storage, or disposal activities, land

disposal facilities that receive or have

received any industrial waste, steam

electric power generating facilities, or

treatment works treating domestic

sewage;

j. Identification of applicable sector(s)

in this permit, as designated in Table 1,

for facility discharges associated with

industrial activity the operator wishes to

have covered under this permit;

k. Certification that a storm water

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)

meeting the requirements of Part 4 has

been developed (with a copy of the

permit language in the SWPPP);

l. Based on the instructions in

Addendum A, whether any listed

threatened or endangered species, or

designated critical habitat, are in

proximity to the storm water discharges

or storm water discharge-related

activities to be covered by this permit;

m. Whether any historic property

listed or eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places is

located on the facility or in proximity to

the discharge;

n. A signed and dated certification,

signed by a authorized representative of

the facility as detailed in Part 9.7 and

maintained with the SWPPP that

certifies the following:

I certify under penalty of law that I have read

and understand the Part 1.2 eligibility

requirements for coverage under the multisector storm water general permit including

those requirements relating to the protection

of endangered or threatened species or

critical habitat. To the best of my knowledge,

the storm water and allowable non-storm

discharges authorized by this permit (and

discharged related activities), are not likely

and will not likely, jeopardize endangered or

threatened species or critical habitat, or are

otherwise eligible for coverage under Part

1.2.3.6 of the permit. To the best of my

knowledge, I further certify that such

discharges and discharge related activities do

not have an effect on properties listed or

eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places under the National Historic

Preservation Act, or are otherwise eligible for

coverage under Part 1.2.3.7 of the permit. I

64758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

1The 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

municipal systems have been designated by EPA on

a case-by-case basis or have brought into the

program based upon the 1990 Census.

understand that continued coverage under

the multi-sector storm water general permit

is contingent upon maintaining eligibility as

provided for in Part 1.2.

Two additional components of the

form pending approval by the Office of

Management and Budget are:

a. under which Part(s) of Part 1.2.3.6

(Endangered Species) the applicant is

certifying eligibility and whether the FWS or

NMFS was involved in making the

determination of eligibility;

b. under which Part(s) of Part 1.2.3.7

(Historic Properties) the applicant is

certifying eligibility and whether the SHPO

or THPO was involved in the determination

of eligibility.

The NOI 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 NOI.

Completed NOI forms must be

submitted to the Storm Water Notice of

Intent (4203), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

In the future (but not at the present

time), EPA may also allow alternate

means of NOI submission (such as

electronic submission). An alternate

means of NOI submission may be used

by operators provided EPA has

informed the operator of the

acceptability of the alternative.

2. Deadlines

For facilities currently covered by the

1995 MSGP, the deadline for

submission of an NOI requesting

coverage under the reissued MSGP is

January 29, 2001 (90 days after

expiration of the 1995 MSGP). For these

facilities, the requirements of the 1995

MSGP are incorporated into today’s

MSGP and continue to apply during the

interim period subsequent to the

expiration of the 1995 MSGP, but prior

to submission of the NOI requesting

coverage under the reissued MSGP. In

response to a question from some

permittees, EPA wishes to clarify that

there is no need to submit an NOT to

rescind coverage under the 1995 MSGP.

Facilities currently covered by the

1995 MSGP who cannot immediately

determine if they are eligible for

coverage under today’s reissued MSGP

may nevertheless be covered for up to

270 days provided an application for an

alternative permit is submitted within

90 days. This interim coverage allows

permit coverage while the permittee

assesses his eligibility for the reissued

MSGP and, if necessary, still meet the

180 day lead time required for

applications for individual permits.

For facilities commencing operations

after reissuance of the MSGP, the NOI

must be submitted at least two days

prior to the commencement of the new

industrial activity. New operators of

existing facilities must also submit the

NOI at least two days prior to assuming

operational control at existing facilities.

Dischargers who submit a complete

NOI in accordance with the MSGP

requirements are authorized to

discharge storm water associated with

industrial activity two days after the

date the NOI is postmarked, unless

otherwise notified by EPA. EPA may

deny coverage under the MSGP and

require submission of an individual

NPDES permit application based on a

review of the completeness and/or

content of the NOI or other information

(e.g., Endangered Species Act

compliance, National Historic

Preservation Act Compliance, water

quality information, compliance history,

history of spills, etc.). Where EPA

requires a discharger authorized under

the MSGP to apply for an individual

NPDES permit (or an alternative general

permit), EPA will notify the discharger

in writing that a permit application (or

different NOI) is required by an

established deadline. Coverage under

the MSGP 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 the MSGP 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.

A discharger is not precluded from

submitting an NOI at a later date than

described above. However, in such

instances, EPA may bring appropriate

enforcement actions.

3. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

System Operator Notification

Operators of storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity that

discharge through a large or medium

municipal separate storm sewer system

(MS4) or a municipal system designated

by the Director,1 must (upon request of

the MS4 operator) submit a copy of the

NOI to the municipal operator of the

system receiving the discharge. This

requirement of today’s MSGP differs

from the 1995 MSGP which had

required that a copy of the NOI be sent

to the MS4 operator. Today’s MSGP has

been modified in this regard to reduce

paperwork requirements, and in

consideration of the fact that most large

and medium MS4 operators already

have good information concerning the

industrial facilities discharging into

their MS4s.

EPA wishes to ensure a coordinated

program between EPA and operators of

MS4s for controlling pollutants in storm

water discharges associated with

industrial activity which enter an MS4.

Such a coordinated program was

intended by EPA’s original storm water

permit application regulations of

November 16, 1990 (55 FR 48063).

Additional discussion of this matter can

be found in the original proposed MSGP

(58 FR 61146).

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. Today’s final MSGP also

differs from the 1995 MSGP by requiring

that an NOT be submitted within 30

days after one or both of the following

two conditions having been met:

a. a new owner/operator has assumed

responsibility for the facility; or

b. the permittee has ceased operations

at the facility and there no longer are

discharges of storm water associated

with industrial activity from the facility;

A copy of the NOT and instructions

for completing the NOT are included in

Addendum E. The NOT form requires

the following information:

a. 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;

b. The name, address and telephone

number of the operator addressed by the

Notice of Termination;

c. The NPDES permit number for the

storm water discharge associated with

industrial activity identified by the

NOT;

d. An indication of whether the storm

water discharges associated with

industrial activity have been eliminated

or the operator of the discharges has

changed; and

e. The following certification:

I certify under penalty of law that all storm

water discharges associated with industrial

activity from the identified facility that are

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64759

2Section 9.12.2 of the final MSGP provides that

facility operators with storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity who, based on an

evaluation of site specific conditions, believe that

the appropriate conditions of this permit do not

adequately represent BAT and BCT requirements

for the facility may submit to the Director an

individual application (Form 1 and Form 2F). A

detailed explanation of the reasons why the

conditions of the available general permits do not

adequately represent BAT and BCT requirements

for the facility as well as any supporting

documentation must be included.

authorized by an NPDES general permit have

been eliminated or that I am no longer the

operator of the industrial activity. 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 an NPDES permit. I also

understand that the submission 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 Storm

Water Notice of Termination (4203),

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

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.

5. Conditional Exclusion for No

Exposure

Today’s final MSGP includes a special

provision (Part 1.5 of the permit) which

provides that a facility may discontinue

permit coverage if the facility

determines that it is eligible for the ‘‘no

exposure’’ permit exemption which was

created by EPA as part of the

promulgation of the Phase II storm

water regulations (64 FR 68722). A

notice of termination is not required to

discontinue permit coverage under

these circumstances. However, in

accordance with the Phase II

regulations, a no exposure certification

must be filed with the permitting

authority.

It should also be noted that facilities

operating under the existing MSGP are

eligible, as of the effective date of the

Phase II regulations, to submit no

exposure certifications immediately if

they meet the criteria for no exposure.

No exposure certification renewals must

be submitted five years from the time

they are first submitted (assuming the

facility still qualifies for the exemption).

If conditions change at a facility such

that renewed MSGP coverage is needed,

the facility may submit an NOI

requesting renewed coverage.

In response to comments on this

matter, EPA has included a copy of the

‘‘No Exposure’’ form and instructions as

Addendum F to today’s permit.

EPA has also prepared a new

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance

Manual for Conditional Exclusion from

Storm Water Permitting Based on ‘‘No

Exposure’’ of Industrial Activities to

Storm Water’’ to assist permittees in

determining eligibility for the

exemption. This guidance document is

available on EPA’s storm water website.

In addition, EPA recently conducted a

mass mailing to permittees (as well as

other stakeholder groups) alerting them

to the no exposure exemption.

B. Special Conditions

The conditions of today’s final MSGP

have been designed to comply with the

technology-based standards of the CWA

(BAT/BCT). Based on a consideration of

the appropriate factors for BAT and BCT

requirements, and a consideration of the

factors and options for controlling

pollutants in storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity, the

final MSGP lists a set of tailored

requirements for developing and

implementing storm water pollution

prevention plans (SWPPPs) and, for

selected discharges, numeric effluent

limitations.2 This is the same approach

as in the 1995 MSGP.

Section VIII of the fact sheet for the

1995 MSGP summarized the industryspecific BMP options for controlling

pollutants in storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity for

the various industrial sectors covered by

the MSGP. Section VIII of today’s fact

sheet does not repeat the information

from the 1995 fact sheet; however,

updates are provided as appropriate.

Section VI.B.4 of today’s fact sheet

discusses the storm water discharges

which are subject to numeric effluent

limitations. For other discharges

covered by the final MSGP, the permit

conditions reflect EPA’s decision to

identify a number of BMP and

traditional storm water management

practices which prevent pollution in

storm water discharges as the BAT/BCT

level of control for the majority of storm

water discharges covered by this permit.

The permit conditions applicable to

these discharges are not numeric

effluent limitations, but rather are

flexible requirements for developing

and implementing site specific plans to

minimize and control pollutants in

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity.

EPA is authorized under 40 CFR

122.44(k)(2) to impose BMPs in lieu of

numeric effluent limitations in NPDES

permits when the Agency finds numeric

effluent limitations to be infeasible. EPA

may also impose BMPs which are

‘‘reasonably necessary * * * to carry

out the purposes of the Act’’ under 40

CFR 122.44(k)(3). Both of these

standards for imposing BMPs were

recognized in NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d

1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The

conditions in today’s final MSGP are

issued under the authority of both of

these regulatory provisions. The

pollution prevention or BMP

requirements in today’s final MSGP

operate as limitations on effluent

discharges that reflect the application of

BAT/BCT. This is because the BMPs

identified require the use of source

control technologies which, in the

context of the MSGP, are the best

available of the technologies

economically achievable (or the

equivalent BCT finding). See NRDC v.

EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 122–23 (D.C. Cir.

1987) (EPA has substantial discretion to

impose nonquantitative permit

requirements pursuant to Section

402(a)(1)). See also EPA’s memorandum

of August 1, 1996 entitled ‘‘Interim

Permitting Approach for Water QualityBased Effluent Limitations for Storm

Water Discharges.’’

1. Prohibition of Non-storm Water

Discharges

Today’s final MSGP includes

basically the same provisions pertaining

to non-storm water discharges as the

1995 MSGP. Like the 1995 MSGP,

today’s MSGP does not authorize nonstorm water discharges that are mixed

with storm water except as provided

below. Today’s MSGP does authorize

one additional non-storm water

discharge: mist discharges which

originate from cooling towers and which

are deposited at an industrial facility

and may be discharged. During the term

of the 1995 MSGP, these discharges

were brought to the attention of EPA

with a request that the discharges be

authorized under the reissued MSGP.

The mist discharges are authorized

under today’s MSGP provided:

a. The permittee has evaluated the

potential for the discharges to be

contaminated by chemicals used in the

cooling tower and determined that the

levels of such chemicals in the

discharges would not cause or

contribute to a violation of an applicable

water quality standard; and

b. The permittee has addressed this

source of pollutants with appropriate

BMPs in the SWPPP.

The other non-storm water discharges

that are authorized under today’s final

MSGP are the same as those in the 1995

MSGP and include discharges from fire

64760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

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; compressor

condensate; uncontaminated ground

water or spring 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. In response to a

comment, the final MSGP includes

‘‘potable water sources, including

waterline flushings’’ on the list of

authorized non-storm water discharges,

but deletes the reference to ‘‘drinking

fountain water,’’ which a commenter

felt could conflict with local ordinances.

To be authorized under today’s

MSGP, these other sources of non-storm

water (except flows from fire fighting

activities) must be identified in the

SWPPP prepared for the facility.

(SWPPP requirements are discussed in

more detail below). Where such

discharges occur, the SWPPP must also

identify and ensure the implementation

of appropriate pollution prevention

measures for the non-storm water

component(s) of the discharge.

Today’s final MSGP does not require

pollution prevention measures to be

identified and implemented for nonstorm 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 of unpermitted nonstorm water discharges in today’s MSGP

ensures that non-storm water discharges

(except for those classes of non-storm

water discharges that are conditionally

authorized in Part 1.2.2.2 of the MSGP)

are not inadvertently authorized by the

permit. Where a storm water discharge

is mixed with non-storm water that is

not authorized by today’s MSGP or

another NPDES permit, the discharger

should submit the appropriate

application forms (Forms 1, 2C, and/or

2E) to gain permit coverage of the nonstorm water portion of the discharge.

2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of

Hazardous Substances and Oil

As discussed below, today’s final

MSGP includes the same provisions

pertaining to releases of reportable

quantities of hazardous substances and

oil as the 1995 MSGP.

a. Today’s final MSGP provides that

the discharge of hazardous substances

or oil from a facility must be eliminated

or minimized in accordance with the

SWPPP 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 Part 117, or

40 CFR Part 302 during a 24-hour

period, the following actions must be

taken:

(1) Any person in charge of the

facility that discharges hazardous

substances or oil 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 Part 117, and 40 CFR Part 302 as

soon as they have knowledge of the

discharge.

(2) The SWPPP 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.

(3) 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 SWPPP for the

facility.

b. 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:

(1) Submit notifications of the first

release that occurs during a calendar

year (or for the first year of this permit,

after submission of an NOI); and

(2) Provide a written description in

the SWPPP of the dates on which such

releases occurred, the type and estimate

of the amount of material released, and

the circumstances leading to the

releases. In addition, the SWPPP must

address measures to minimize such

releases.

c. Where a discharge of a hazardous

substance or oil in excess of reporting

quantities is caused by a non-storm

water discharge (e.g., a spill of oil into

a separate storm sewer), that discharge

is not authorized by the MSGP and the

discharger must report the discharge as

required under 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR

Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 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)).

3. Co-located Industrial Facilities

Like the 1995 MSGP, today’s MSGP

includes requirements pertaining to colocated industrial facilities. However,

these requirements have been modified

from the requirements of the 1995

MSGP to clarify their applicability. Colocated industrial activities occur when

activities being conducted onsite fall

into more than one of the categories of

the industrial facilities listed in Part

1.2.1 of today’s MSGP (e.g., a landfill at

a wood treatment facility). Facilities

operating under the 1995 MSGP have

sometimes been unclear whether certain

limited activities (e.g., minor vehicle

maintenance activities at an industrial

plant) would trigger the MSGP’s

requirements regarding co-located

activities.

If you have co-located industrial

activities on-site that are described in a

sector(s) other than your primary sector,

you must comply with all other

applicable sector-specific conditions

found in Part 6 for the co-located

industrial activities. The extra sectorspecific requirements are applied only

to those areas of your facility where the

extra-sector activities occur. An activity

at a facility is not considered co-located

if the activity, when considered

separately, does not meet the

description of a category of industrial

activity covered by the storm water

regulations, and identified by today’s

MSGP SIC code list. For example,

unless you are actually hauling

substantial amounts of freight or

materials with your own truck fleet or

are providing a trucking service to

outsiders, simple maintenance of

vehicles used at your facility is unlikely

to meet the SIC code group 42

description of a motor freight

transportation facility. Even though

Sector P may not apply, the runoff from

your vehicle maintenance facility would

likely still be considered storm water

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64761

3See ‘‘Storm Water Management for Industrial

Activities,’’ EPA, September 1992, EPA–832–R–92–

006.

4For 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 memoranda 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

Continued

associated with industrial activity. As

such, your SWPPP must still address the

runoff from the vehicle maintenance

facility—although not necessarily with

the same degree of detail as required by

Sector P—but you would not be

required to monitor as per Sector P.

In the event there truly are co-located

activities at your facility, today’s MSGP

authorizes, as does the 1995 MSGP, all

storm water discharges provided that

your facility complies with all SWPPP

and monitoring requirements for each

co-located activity. By monitoring the

discharges from the different industrial

activities, you can better determine the

effectiveness of your SWPPP for

controlling all major pollutants of

concern in your storm water discharges.

However, if monitoring for the same

parameter is required for more than one

sector (and the different industrial

activities drain to the same outfall), then

only one sample analysis is required for

that parameter.

4. Numeric Effluent Limitations

Today’s MSGP retains the numeric

effluent limitations which were

included in the 1995 MSGP, and also

includes the effluent limitations

guidelines which EPA recently finalized

for certain storm water discharges from

new and existing hazardous and nonhazardous landfills (65 FR 3007, January

19, 2000). The new effluent limitations

guidelines for these landfills are

discussed in more detail in the Sections

VIII.K and L of this fact sheet (Special

Requirements for Discharges Associated

with Industry Activities).

Today’s MSGP retains the numeric

effluent limitations from the 1995 MSGP

for the following discharges: coal pile

runoff (including runoff from steam

electric power plants subject to 40 CFR

Part 423 requirements), discharges from

phosphate fertilizer manufacturing (40

CFR Part 418), asphalt paving and

roofing emulsions (40 CFR Part 443),

cement manufacturing materials storage

pile runoff (40 CFR Part 411), and

discharges resulting from the spray

down of lumber and wood products

storage yards (wet decking) (40 CFR Part

429). In addition, the final MSGP

authorizes mine dewatering discharges

from construction sand and gravel,

industrial sand, and crushed stone

facilities (40 CFR Part 436) in EPA

Regions 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10. The actual

numeric effluent limitations can be

found in Part 6 of the final MSGP.

5. Compliance with Water Quality

Standards

The 1995 MSGP does not specifically

address compliance with water quality

standards (WQS), other than to exclude

from coverage discharges which may

contribute to an exceedance of WQS.

Today’s final MSGP includes the same

restriction on eligibility, and in Part 3.3

also includes certain requirements if

exceedances occur for discharges

covered by the MSGP. If a discharge

authorized under the final MSGP is later

discovered to cause, or have the

reasonable potential to cause or

contribute to, a violation of a WQS, the

permitting authority will inform the

permittee of the violation. The permittee

must then take all necessary actions to

ensure future discharges do not cause or

contribute to the violation of WQS, and

document these actions in the SWPPP.

If violations remain or recur, coverage

under the MSGP may be terminated by

the permitting authority and an

alternate permit issued. Today’s final

MSGP also clarifies that compliance

with this requirement does not preclude

enforcement actions as provided by the

CWA for the underlying violation.

C. Common Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

Like the 1995 MSGP, today’s reissued

MSGP requires that all facilities which

intend to be covered by the MSGP for

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity prepare and

implement a SWPPP. The MSGP

addresses pollution prevention plan

requirements for a number of categories

of industries. Following below is a

discussion of the common permit

requirements for all industries; special

requirements for facilities subject to

EPCRA Section 313 reporting

requirements; and special requirements

for facilities with outdoor salt storage

piles. These are the permit requirements

which apply to discharges associated

with any of the industrial activities

covered by today’s final MSGP. These

common requirements may be amended

or further clarified in the industryspecific SWPPP requirements which are

found in Part 6 of the final MSGP. These

industry-specific requirements are

additive for facilities where co-located

industrial activities occur.

The Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan (SWPPP) approach in today’s final

MSGP focuses on 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) ensure implementation of measures

to minimize and control pollutants in

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from the facility.

The SWPPP requirements in today’s

final MSGP 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 effectiveness of the plan to prevent

storm water contamination.

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 1979.3 The survey

found that two classes of management

practices are generally employed at

industries to control the nonroutine

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 widely

considered essential to a good pollution

control program. Some examples of

practices in this class are good

housekeeping, employee training, and

spill response and 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, and

cleanup. 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,4 as well as the

64762 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Permitting Activities for Storm Water Discharges

Associated with Industrial Activity,’’ EPA, 1991.

5See 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.

6Nonstructural features such as grass swales and

vegetative buffer strips also should be shown.

7Significant 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)).

techniques used to prevent and contain

oil spills. 5 Experience with these

practices and controls has shown that

they can be used in permits to reduce

pollutants in storm water discharges in

a cost-effective manner. In keeping with

both the present and previous

administration’s objective to attain

environmental goals through pollution

prevention, pollution prevention has

been and continues to be the

cornerstone of the NPDES permitting

program for storm water. EPA has

developed guidance entitled ‘‘Storm

Water Management for Industrial

Activities: Developing Pollution

Prevention Plans and Best Management

Practices,’’ September 1992, to assist

permittees in developing and

implementing pollution prevention

measures.

Note: The discussions of the SWPPP

requirements are grouped in subject areas

and do not follow the exact order of the

permit conditions.

1. Pollution Prevention Team (Part

4.2.1)

As a first step in the process of

developing and implementing a SWPPP,

permittees are required to 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 the Facility and

Potential Pollution Sources (Part 4.2.2)

Each SWPPP 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. Some

operators may find that significant

amounts of pollutants are running onto

the facility property. Such operators

should identify and address the

contaminated runon in the SWPPP. If

the runon cannot be addressed or

diverted by the permittee, the

permitting authority should be notified.

If necessary, the permitting authority

may require the operator of the adjacent

facility to obtain a permit.

Part 6 of the final MSGP includes

industry-specific requirements for the

various industry sectors covered by

today’s permit. All SWPPPs generally

must describe the following elements:

a. Description of the Facility Site and

Receiving Waters/Wetlands (Parts 4.2.2

and 4.2.3): The plan must contain a map

of the site that shows the location of

outfalls covered by the permit (or by

other NPDES permits), the pattern of

storm water drainage, an indication of

the types of discharges contained in the

drainage areas of the outfalls, structural

features that control pollutants in

runoff,6 surface water bodies (including

wetlands), places where significant

materials 7 are exposed to rainfall and

runoff, and locations of major spills and

leaks that occurred in the 3 years prior

to the date of the submission of an NOI

to be covered under 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. In order to increase the

readability of the map, the inventory of

the types of discharges contained in

each outfall may be kept as an

attachment to the site map.

b. Summary of Potential Pollutant

Sources (Part 4.2.4): 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 onsite 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.

c. Significant Spills and Leaks (Part

4.2.5): The plan must include a list of

any significant spills and leaks of toxic

or hazardous pollutants that occurred in

the three years prior to the date of the

submission of an NOI to be covered

under this 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 40 CFR 117.21) or Section 102 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) (see 40 CFR 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64763

8 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.

procedures necessary to fulfill the

requirements set forth in Parts 4 and 6

of the final permit.

d. Allowable and Prohibited Nonstorm Water Discharges (Part 4.4): Each

SWPPP 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 onsite 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.8

Except for flows that originate from

fire fighting activities, sources of nonstorm water that are specifically

identified in the permit as being eligible

for authorization under the general

permit must be identified in the plan.

SWPPPs 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 4.4 of the final

MSGP.

e. Sampling Data (Part 4.2.6): Any

existing data on the quality or quantity

of storm water discharges from the

facility must be described in the plan,

including data collected for Part 2 of the

group application process. 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.

3. Selection and Implementation of

Storm Water Controls (Part 4.2.7, et al.)

Following completion of the source

identification and assessment phase, the

permit requires the permittee to

evaluate, select, and describe the

pollution prevention measures, 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 SWPPP 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

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 permit requirements

included for the various industry sectors

in Part 6 of today’s final MSGP generally

require that the portion of the plan that

describes the measures and controls

address the following minimum

components.

When ‘‘minimize/reduce’’ is used

relative to SWPPP measures, EPA means

to consider and implement BMPs that

will result in an improvement over the

baseline conditions as it relates to the

levels of pollutants identified in storm

water discharges with due consideration

to economic feasibility and

effectiveness.

a. Nonstructural Controls:

• Good Housekeeping. Good

housekeeping involves using practical,

cost-effective methods 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.

• Minimizing Exposure. Where

practicable, protecting potential

pollutant sources from exposure to

storm water is an important control

option. Pollutants that are never

allowed to contaminate storm water do

not require development of ‘‘treatment’’

type BMPs. Elimination of all exposure

to storm water may also make the

facility eligible for the ‘‘No Exposure

Certification’’ exclusion from permitting

at 40 CFR 122.26(g)

• 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.

• 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

64764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

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.

• Routine Inspections. In addition to

the comprehensive site evaluation,

facilities are required to conduct

periodic inspections of designated

equipment and areas of the facility.

Industry-specific requirements for such

inspections, if any, are set forth in Part

6 of the final MSGP. When required,

qualified personnel must be identified

to conduct inspections at appropriate

intervals specified in the plan. A set of

tracking or follow-up procedures must

be used to ensure that appropriate

actions are taken in response to the

inspections. Records of inspections

must be maintained. These periodic

inspections are different from the

comprehensive site evaluation, even

though the former may be incorporated

into the latter. Equipment, area, or other

inspections are typically visual and are

normally conducted on a regular basis,

e.g., daily inspections of loading areas.

Requirements for such periodic

inspections are specific to each

industrial sector in today’s permit,

whereas the comprehensive site

compliance evaluation is required of all

industrial sectors. Area inspections help

ensure that storm water pollution

prevention measures (e.g., BMPs) are

operating and properly maintained on a

regular basis. The comprehensive site

evaluation is intended to provide an

overview of the entire facility’s

pollution prevention activities. Refer to

Part VI.C.3.h. below for more

information on the comprehensive site

evaluation.

• Employee Training. The SWPPP

must describe a program for informing

personnel at all levels of responsibility

of the components and goals of the

SWPPP. The training program should

address topics such as good

housekeeping, materials management,

and spill response procedures. Where

appropriate, contractor personnel also

must be trained in relevant aspects of

storm water pollution prevention. A

schedule for conducting training must

be provided in the plan. Several

sections in Part 6 of today’s final MSGP

specify a minimum frequency for

training of once per year. Others

indicate that training is to be conducted

at an appropriate interval. EPA

recommends that facilities conduct

training annually at a minimum.

However, more frequent training may be

necessary at facilities with high

turnover of employees or where

employee participation is essential to

the storm water pollution prevention

plan.

b. Structural Controls:

• Sediment and Erosion Control. The

SWPPP 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.

• 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.

c. Example BMPs: Part 4.2.7.2.2

includes a list of example BMPs that

could be considered for use in a SWPPP,

for example: detention structures

(including wet ponds); storm water

retention structures; flow attenuation by

use of open vegetated swales and

natural depressions; infiltration of

runoff onsite; and sequential systems

(which combine several practices).

These examples are not intended to

limit the creativity of facility operators

in developing alternative BMPs or

applications for BMPs that increase cost

effectiveness.

d. Selection of Controls: 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 affecting

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.

e. Other Controls: Today’s final MSGP

includes a new requirement that no

solid materials, including floating debris

may be discharged to waters of the

United States, except as authorized by a

permit under Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act. In addition, off-site tracking

of raw, final, or waste materials or

sediment, and the generation of dust

must be minimized. Tracking or

blowing of raw, final, or waste materials

from areas of no exposure to exposed

areas must be minimized. These

requirements are similar to

requirements included in EPA’s

construction general storm water permit

(63 FR 7858, February 17, 1998) which

EPA believes would be appropriate for

industrial facilities as well.

f. Maintenance (Part 4.3): All BMPs

identified in the SWPPP must be

maintained in effective operating

condition.

g. Controls for Allowable Non-Storm

Water (Part 4.4.2): Where an allowable

non-storm water has been identified,

appropriate controls for that discharge

must be included in the permit. In many

cases, the same types of controls for

contaminated storm water would

suffice, but the nature and volume of

potential pollutants in the non-storm

water discharges must be taken into

consideration in selection of controls.

h. Comprehensive Site Compliance

Evaluation (Part 4.9): Today’s final

MSGP requires that the SWPPP describe

the scope and content of the

comprehensive site evaluations 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. Note that the

comprehensive site evaluations are not

the same as periodic or other

inspections described for certain

industries in Section VI.C.3.d of this fact

sheet. However, in the instances when

frequencies of inspections and the

comprehensive site compliance

evaluation overlap, they may be

combined allowing for efficiency as long

as the requirements for both types of

inspections are met. The plan must

indicate the frequency of

comprehensive evaluations which must

be at least once a year, except where

comprehensive site evaluations are

shown in the plan to be impractical for

inactive mining sites, due to remote

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64765

9Where 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.

location and inaccessibility.9 The

individual or individuals who will

conduct the comprehensive site

evaluation must be identified in the

plan and should be members of the

pollution prevention team. Material

handling and storage areas and other

potential sources of pollution must be

visually inspected for evidence of actual

or potential pollutant discharges to the

drainage system. Inspectors also must

observe erosion controls and structural

storm water management devices to

ensure that each is operating correctly.

Equipment needed to implement the

SWPPP, such as that used during spill

response activities, must be inspected to

confirm that it is in proper working

order.

The results of each comprehensive

site evaluation must be documented in

a report signed by an authorized

company official. The report must

describe the scope of the comprehensive

site evaluation, the personnel making

the comprehensive site evaluation, the

date(s) of the comprehensive site

evaluation, and any major observations

relating to implementation of the

SWPPP. Comprehensive site evaluation

reports must be retained for at least

three years after the date of the

evaluation. Based on the results of each

comprehensive site evaluation, the

description in the plan of potential

pollution sources and measures and

controls must be revised as appropriate

within two weeks after each

comprehensive site evaluation, unless

indicated otherwise in Part 6 of the

permit. If existing BMPs need to be

modified or if additional BMPs are

necessary, implementation must be

completed before the next anticipated

storm, or not more than 12 weeks after

completion of the comprehensive site

evaluation.

i. Applicable State, Tribal, or Local

Plans (Part 4.8): The SWPPP must be

consistent with any applicable

requirements of State, Tribal, or Local

storm water, waste disposal, sanitary

sewer or septic system regulations to the

extent these apply to a facility and are

more stringent than the requirements of

this permit.

j. Documentation of Permit Eligibility

with Regards to ESA and NHPA

Requirements (Parts 4.5 and 4.6): To

better ensure compliance with the

requirements of the ESA and NHPA,

Parts 4.5 and 4.6 of today’s final MSGP

require that documentation be included

with the SWPPP demonstrating permit

eligibility with regards to the

requirements of the ESA and NHPA.

The following information is required

for the ESA:

• Information on whether listed

endangered or threatened species, or

critical habitat, are found in proximity

to the facility;

• Whether such species may be

jeopardized by the storm water

discharges or storm water dischargerelated activities;

• Results of the Addendum A

endangered species screening

determinations; and

• A description of measures

necessary to protect listed endangered

or threatened species, or critical habitat,

including any terms or conditions that

are imposed under the eligibility

requirements of Part 1.2.3.6. The final

MSGP notes that discharges from

facilities which fail to describe and

implement such measures are ineligible

for coverage under the permit.

The following information is required

for the NHPA determination:

• Information on whether the storm

water discharges or storm water

discharge-related activities would have

an effect on a property that is listed or

eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places;

• Where effects may occur, any

written agreements which have been

made with the State Historic

Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic

Preservation Officer, or other Tribal

leader to mitigate those effects;

• Results of the Addendum B historic

places screening determinations; and

• A description of measures

necessary to avoid or minimize adverse

impacts on places listed, or eligible for

listing, on the National Register of

Historic Places, including any terms or

conditions that are imposed under the

eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.7 of

this permit. The final MSGP notes that

discharges from facilities which fail to

describe and implement such measures

are ineligible for coverage under the

permit.

k. Keeping a Copy of the Permit with

the SWPPP (Part 4.7): A new

requirement to have a copy of the

permit language in the SWPPP has been

added to today’s permit. The

‘‘confirmation’’ letter received from the

NOI Processing Center is not the permit;

it is essentially only the equivalent of a

‘‘receipt’’ for a facility’s ‘‘registration’’

(NOI) to use the general permit. Since

determining permit eligibility and

preparing a SWPPP is required prior to

obtaining permit coverage, a copy of the

permit would be needed anyway.

Requiring a copy of the permit in the

SWPPP ensures that facility operators,

and not just whoever prepared the

SWPPP, will have ready access to all

permit requirements.

l. Recordkeeping and Keeping the

SWPPP Current (Parts 4.9.4, 4.10, et al.):

Records must be kept with the SWPPP

documenting the status and

effectiveness of plan implementation. At

a minimum, records must address

results of the annual Comprehensive

Site Compliance Evaluations, routine

facility inspections, spills, monitoring,

and maintenance activities. The plan

also must describe a system that enables

timely reporting of storm water

management-related information to

appropriate plant personnel. Inspectors

or other enforcement officers will ask

for records documenting permit

compliance during inspections or

facility compliance reviews.

The SWPPP must be updated

whenever there is a change at the

facility that would significantly affect

the discharges authorized under the

MSGP. The SWPPP must also be

updated whenever monitoring results

and/or an inspection by the permittee or

by local, state, tribal, or federal officials

indicate a portion of the SWPPP is

proving to be ineffective in controlling

storm water discharge quality.

m. Signature, Plan Review, and

Access to the SWPPP (Part 4.11): The

SWPPP must be signed and certified in

accordance with Part 7 of the permit. A

copy of the SWPPP must be kept on site

at the facility or be locally available for

the use of the Director, a State, Tribe, or

local agency (e.g., MS4 operator) at the

time of an onsite inspection. The

SWPPP must also be made available to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or

National Marine Fisheries Service upon

request. Since SWPPPs are living

documents that change over time, access

to the current version of the SWPPP is

critical in assessing permit compliance.

Facilities are also required to provide a

copy of the SWPPP to the public when

requested in writing to do so.

The Director may notify you at any

time that your SWPPP does not meet

one or more of the minimum

requirements of this permit. The

notification will identify provisions of

the permit which are not being met, as

well as the required modifications.

Required changes must be made within

thirty (30) calendar days and a written

certification submitted to the Director

confirming that the changes were made.

EPA does not intend to require public

comment on SWPPPs or hold public

hearings. As noted above, EPA may

require changes to a SWPPP when

necessary and may consider concerns

from the public in making such

judgments. The MSGP also provides

64766 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

that individual permits may be required

when the MSGP is inappropriate for a

given facility. During the issuance of the

individual permits, the public would

have an opportunity to comment on the

requirements of the permits.

4. Deadlines

Today’s MSGP requires that

permittees previously covered by the

1995 MSGP must update their SWPPPs

to comply with any new requirements of

today’s MSGP by the date they submit

their new NOIs. As noted earlier, the

new NOIs are due January 29, 2001.

However, a permittee may request an

extension for the SWPPP update not to

exceed 270 days from the expiration

date of the 1995 MSGP.

D. Special Requirements

1. Special Requirements for Storm

Water Discharges Associated With

Industrial Activity From Facilities

Subject to EPCRA Section 313

Requirements (Part 4.12)

Today’s final MSGP replaces the

special requirements of the 1995 MSGP

for certain permittees subject to

reporting requirements under Section

313 of the EPCRA (also known as Title

III of the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA)) with a

requirement to identify areas with these

pollutants. 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 500

chemicals and chemical classes listed at

40 CFR Part 372 (including the recently

added chemicals published November

30, 1994).

By requiring identification of EPCRA

313 chemicals in the summary of

potential pollutant sources under the

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

(Part 4.2.4), the facility operator is then

required to develop appropriate storm

water controls for such areas (Part

4.2.7). EPA expects that many controls

for EPCRA chemicals will continue to

be driven by other state and federal

environmental regulations such as Spill

Prevention Control and Countermeasure

(SPCC) plans required under Section

311 of the CWA, etc. as long as such a

requirement is incorporated into the

SWPPP.

This reduction in permit complexity

by eliminating redundant requirements

was requested by members of the

regulated community.

2. Special Requirements for Storm

Water Discharges Associated With

Industrial Activity From Salt Storage

Facilities

Today’s MSGP retains the same

special requirements as the 1995 MSGP

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

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.

These special requirements have been

included in today’s permit based on

human health and aquatic effects

resulting from storm water runoff from

salt storage piles compounded with the

prevalence of salt storage piles across

the United States.

3. Consistency With Other Plans

SWPPPs may reference the existence

of other plans for Spill Prevention

Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)

developed for the facility under Section

311 of the CWA or BMP programs

otherwise required by an NPDES permit

for the facility as long as such

requirement is incorporated into the

SWPPP.

E. Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements

Today’s final MSGP retains the same

monitoring requirements as the existing

MSGP. Numerous comments were

submitted on these monitoring

requirements. A summary of EPA’s

responses to these comments and

justification for retaining these

requirements is contained in this

section. A more detailed discussion is

found in Section IX of this fact sheet

(Summary of Responses to Comments).

Responses to individual comments are

contained in the Water Docket.

Like the 1995 MSGP, today’s final

MSGP includes three general types of

monitoring: analytical monitoring or

chemical monitoring; compliance

monitoring for effluent guidelines

compliance, and visual examinations of

storm water discharges. A general

description of each of these types of

monitoring which was provided with

the 1995 MSGP is repeated below.

1. Analytical Monitoring Requirements

Analytical monitoring requirements

involve laboratory chemical analyses of

samples collected by the permittee. The

results of the analytical monitoring are

quantitative concentration values for

different pollutants, which can be easily

compared to the results from other

sampling events, other facilities, or to

national benchmarks.

The categories of facilities subject to

analytical monitoring in today’s final

MSGP are noted in Table 1 of this fact

sheet. The MSGP requires analytical

monitoring for the industry sectors or

subsectors that demonstrated in the

group application data a potential to

discharge pollutants at concentrations of

concern or, in certain State-specific

cases, to satisfy those States’

requirements. The data submitted with

the group permit applications were

reviewed by EPA to determine the

industry sectors and subsectors listed in

Table 1 of this fact sheet that are to be

subject to analytical monitoring

requirements. First, EPA divided the

Part 1 and Part 2 application data by the

industry sectors listed in Table 1. Where

a sector was found to contain a wide

range of industrial activities or potential

pollutant sources, it was further

subdivided into the industry subsectors

listed in Table 1. Next, EPA reviewed

the information submitted in Part 1 of

the group applications regarding the

industrial activities, significant

materials exposed to storm water, and

the material management measures

employed. This information helped

identify potential pollutants that may be

present in the storm water discharges.

Then EPA entered into a database the

sampling data submitted in Part 2 of the

group applications. Those data were

arrayed according to industrial sector

and subsector for the purposes of

determining when analytical monitoring

would be appropriate.

To conduct a comparison of the

results of the statistical analyses to

determine when analytical monitoring

would be required, EPA established

‘‘benchmark’’ concentrations for the

pollutant parameters on which

monitoring results had been received.

The ‘‘benchmarks’’ are the pollutant

concentrations above which EPA

determined represent a level of concern.

The level of concern is a concentration

at which a storm water discharge could

potentially impair, or contribute to

impairing, water quality or affect human

health from ingestion of water or fish.

The benchmarks are also viewed by EPA

as a level that, if below, a facility

presents little potential for water quality

concern. As such, the benchmarks also

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64767

provide an appropriate level to

determine whether a facility’s storm

water pollution prevention measures are

successfully implemented. The

benchmark concentrations are not

effluent limitations and should not be

interpreted or adopted as such. These

values are merely levels which EPA has

used to determine if a storm water

discharge from any given facility merits

further monitoring to ensure that the

facility has been successful in

implementing a SWPPP. As such, these

levels represent a target concentration

for a facility to achieve through

implementation of pollution prevention

measures at the facility. Table 3 lists the

parameter benchmark values and the

sources used for the benchmarks. Two

changes from the 1995 MSGP are the

addition of benchmark values for total

Cyanide and Total Magnesium.

Benchmark values for the two

parameters were included in the Fact

Sheet of the 1995 MSGP at Table K–3,

but were inadvertently not included in

the general listing of parameter

benchmark values (Table 5 of the Fact

Sheet for the 1995 MSGP). Additional

information explaining the derivation of

the benchmarks can be found in the fact

sheet for the 1995 MSGP (60 FR 50825).

TABLE 3.—PARAMETER BENCHMARK VALUES

Parameter name Benchmark level Source

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 day) ................................................................................ 30 mg/L ....................................................... 4

Chemical Oxygen Demand ................................................................................................. 120 mg/L ..................................................... 5

Total Suspended Solids ...................................................................................................... 100 mg/L ..................................................... 7

Oil and Grease .................................................................................................................... 15 mg/L ....................................................... 8

Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen ...................................................................................................... 0.68 mg/L .................................................... 7

Total Phosphorus ................................................................................................................ 2.0 mg/L ...................................................... 6

pH ........................................................................................................................................ 6.0–9.0 s.u. .................................................. 4

Acrylonitrile (c) ..................................................................................................................... 7.55 mg/L .................................................... 2

Aluminum, Total (pH 6.5–9) ................................................................................................ 0.75 mg/L .................................................... 1

Ammonia .............................................................................................................................. 19 mg/L ....................................................... 1

Antimony, Total .................................................................................................................... 0.636 mg/L .................................................. 9

Arsenic, Total (c) ................................................................................................................. 0.16854 mg/L .............................................. 9

Benzene ............................................................................................................................... 0.01 mg/L .................................................... 10

Beryllium, Total (c) .............................................................................................................. 0.13 mg/L .................................................... 2

Butylbenzyl Phthalate .......................................................................................................... 3 mg/L ......................................................... 3

Cadmium, Total (H) ............................................................................................................. 0.0159 mg/L ................................................ 9

Chloride ............................................................................................................................... 860 mg/L ..................................................... 1

Copper, Total (H) ................................................................................................................. 0.0636 mg/L ................................................ 9

Cyanide, Total ..................................................................................................................... 0.0636 mg/l .................................................. 9

Dimethyl Phthalate .............................................................................................................. 1.0 mg/L ...................................................... 11

Ethylbenzene ....................................................................................................................... 3.1 mg/L ...................................................... 3

Fluoranthene ........................................................................................................................ 0.042 mg/L .................................................. 3

Fluoride ................................................................................................................................ 1.8 mg/L ...................................................... 6

Iron, Total ............................................................................................................................ 1.0 mg/L ...................................................... 12

Lead, Total (H) .................................................................................................................... 0.0816 mg/L ................................................ 1

Magnesium, Total ................................................................................................................ 0.0636 mg/l .................................................. 9

Manganese .......................................................................................................................... 1.0 mg/L ...................................................... 13

Mercury, Total ...................................................................................................................... 0.0024 mg/L ................................................ 1

Nickel, Total (H) ................................................................................................................... 1.417 mg/L .................................................. 1

PCB–1016 (c) ...................................................................................................................... 0.000127 mg/L ............................................ 9

PCB–1221 (c) ...................................................................................................................... 0.10 mg/L .................................................... 10

PCB–1232 (c) ...................................................................................................................... 0.000318 mg/L ............................................ 9

PCB–1242 (c) ...................................................................................................................... 0.00020 mg/L .............................................. 10

PCB–1248 (c) ...................................................................................................................... 0.002544 mg/L ............................................ 9

PCB–1254 (c) ...................................................................................................................... 0.10 mg/L .................................................... 10

PCB–1260 (c) ...................................................................................................................... 0.000477 mg/L ............................................ 9

Phenols, Total ...................................................................................................................... 1.0 mg/L ...................................................... 11

Pyrene (PAH,c) .................................................................................................................... 0.01 mg/L .................................................... 10

Selenium, Total (*) ............................................................................................................... 0.2385 mg/L ................................................ 9

Silver, Total (H) ................................................................................................................... 0.0318 mg/L ................................................ 9

Toluene ................................................................................................................................ 10.0 mg/L .................................................... 3

Trichloroethylene (c) ............................................................................................................ 0.0027 mg/L ................................................ 3

Zinc, Total (H) ...................................................................................................................... 0.117 mg/L .................................................. 1

Sources:

1. ‘‘EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria.’’ Acute Aquatic Life Freshwater.

2. ‘‘EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria.’’ LOEL Acute Freshwater.

3. ‘‘EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria.’’ Human Health Criteria for Consumption of Water and Organisms.

4. Secondary Treatment Regulations (40 CFR 133).

5. Factor of 4 times BOD5 concentration—North Carolina benchmark.

6. North Carolina storm water benchmark derived from NC Water Quality Standards.

7. National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) median concentration.

8. Median concentration of Storm Water Effluent Limitation Guideline (40 CFR Part 419).

9. Minimum Level (ML) based upon highest Method Detection Limit (MDL) times a factor of 3.18.

10. Laboratory derived Minimum Level (ML).

11. Discharge limitations and compliance data.

12. ‘‘EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria.’’ Chronic Aquatic Life Freshwater.

13. Colorado—Chronic Aquatic Life Freshwater—Water Quality Criteria.

Notes:

(*) Limit established for oil and gas exploration and production facilities only.

(c) carcinogen.

64768 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

(H) hardness dependent.

(PAH) Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon.

Assumptions:

Receiving water temperature ¥20 C.

Receiving water pH ¥7.8.

Receiving water hardness CaCO3 100 mg/L.

Receiving water salinity 20 g/kg

Acute to Chronic Ratio (ACR) ¥10.

EPA prepared a statistical analysis of

the sampling data for each pollutant

parameter reported within each sector

or subsector. (Only where EPA did not

subdivide an industry sector into

subsectors was an analysis of the entire

sector’s data performed.) The statistical

analysis was performed assuming a

delta log normal distribution of the

sampling data within each sector/

subsector. The analyses calculated

median, mean, maximum, minimum,

95th, and 99th percentile concentrations

for each parameter. The results of the

analyses can be found in the appropriate

section of Section VIII of the fact sheet

accompanying the 1995 MSGP. From

this analysis, EPA was able to identify

pollutants for further evaluation within

each sector or subsector.

EPA next compared the median

concentration of each pollutant for each

sector or subsector to the benchmark

concentrations listed in Table 3. EPA

also compared the other statistical

results to the benchmarks to better

ascertain the magnitude and range of the

discharge concentrations to help

identify the pollutants of concern. EPA

did not conduct this analysis if a sector

had data for a pollutant from less than

three individual facilities. Under these

circumstances, the sector or subsector

would not have this pollutant identified

as a pollutant of concern. This was done

to ensure that a reasonable number of

facilities represented the industry sector

or subsector as a whole and that the

analysis did not rely on data from only

one facility.

For each industry sector or subsector,

parameters with a median concentration

higher than the benchmark level were

considered pollutants of concern for the

industry and identified as potential

pollutants for analytical monitoring

under today’s permit. EPA then

analyzed the list of potential pollutants

to be monitored against the lists of

significant materials exposed and

industrial activities which occur within

each industry sector or subsector as

described in the Part I application

information. Where EPA could identify

a source of a potential pollutant which

is directly related to industrial activities

of the industry sector or subsector, the

permit identifies that parameter for

analytical monitoring. If EPA could not

identify a source of a potential pollutant

which was associated with the sector/

subsector’s industrial activity, the

permit does not require monitoring for

the pollutant in that sector/subsector.

Industries with no pollutants for which

the median concentrations are higher

than the benchmark levels are not

required to perform analytical

monitoring under this permit, with the

exceptions explained below.

In addition to the sectors and

subsectors identified for analytical

monitoring using the methods described

above, EPA determined, based upon a

review of the degree of exposure, types

of materials exposed, special studies

and in some cases inadequate sampling

data in the group applications, that the

following industries also warrant

analytical monitoring notwithstanding

the absence of data on the presence or

absence of certain pollutants in the

group applications: Sector K (hazardous

waste treatment storage and disposal

facilities), and Sector S (airports which

use more than 100,000 gallons per year

of glycol-based fluids or 100 tons of urea

for deicing). Today’s final MSGP retains

the monitoring requirements of the 1995

MSGP due to the high potential for

contamination of storm water discharge

which EPA believes was not adequately

characterized by group applicants in the

information they provided in the group

application process. Like the 1995

MSGP, exemptions for today’s MSGP

would be on a pollutant-by-pollutant

and outfall-by-outfall basis.

As part of the reissuance process for

today’s MSGP, EPA evaluated Discharge

Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted

by facilities for analytical monitoring

conducted during the second and fourth

year of the 1995 MSGP. The purpose of

the evaluation was to evaluate any

trends in the monitoring results. One

factor common to almost all industrial

sectors, however, was that the number

of DMRs submitted for the year-four

monitoring period far exceeded the

number of DMRs submitted for the yeartwo monitoring period. For the secondyear monitoring period, EPA received

380 DMRs, whereas 1377 DMRs were

received for the fourth-year monitoring

period. For example, the number of

Sector M (Auto Salvage Yards) facilities

that submitted monitoring results for

total suspended solids from the second

year monitoring period was roughly 26;

the number of DMRs submitted for the

fourth year monitoring for the same

industrial sector and parameter was 240.

As a result, EPA could not conduct the

trends analysis it intended to perform.

While the exact reason for the

significant increase in the number of

DMRs received in year 4 of the permit

(as compared to year 2) is unknown,

EPA suspects it is related to the

administrative extension of EPA’s 1992

baseline general permit. Although the

1992 general permit expired in

September 1997, the permit was

administratively extended. It was not

until December 28, 1998 that facilities

previously covered under EPA’s

baseline industrial permit were required

to obtain coverage under the MSGP. As

a result, facilities previously covered

under the baseline industrial permit

were not required to conduct analytical

monitoring (as required in the second

year of the 1995 MSGP). In essence, the

fourth-year monitoring data set EPA

received represents the baseline of

pollutant discharge information under

the sector-specific industrial general

storm water permit.

Based on the information received

during the public comment period and

the DMRs received, EPA believes it is

premature to make any final

conclusions regarding the value of the

Agency’s acquisition of the monitoring

data or to consider dropping the

monitoring. EPA is retaining quarterly

analytic monitoring requirements for

storm water discharges as per the 1995

MSGP for all sectors previously

identified. Comparison of pollutant

levels against benchmark levels is still

regarded as one of the important tools

operators must use to evaluate their

facilities’ storm water pollution

prevention plans (SWPPPs) and best

management practices (BMPs).

Facilities’ discharge monitoring reports

(DMRs) are also vital to the Agency for

use in characterizing an industrial

sector’s discharges. EPA has not, and

does not, intend for pollutant levels

above the benchmark values to mean a

facility is out of compliance with the

MSGP–2000.

While today’s permit retains the

analytical monitoring requirements of

the 1995 MSGP, the Agency continues

to support the position that any

analytical monitoring program required

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64769

under the MSGP needs to be structured

so that it provides useful information to

facility operators, EPA and the general

public on the effectiveness of Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plans. EPA

commits to using data from the 1995

and 2000 permits to evaluate the

effectiveness of management practices

on an industry sector basis and to

evaluate the need for changes in

monitoring protocols for the next

permit. The Agency will work with

program stakeholders in conducting the

evaluation and may seek to implement

certain changes possibly on a pilot

basis.

Like the 1995 MSGP, today’s MSGP

requires that all facilities, save for

Sector G, within an industry sector or

subsector identified for analytical

monitoring must, at a minimum,

monitor their storm water discharges

quarterly during the second year of

permit coverage, unless the facility

exercises the Alternative Certification

described in Section VI.E.3 of this fact

sheet. At the end of the second year of

coverage under the current permit, a

facility is required to calculate the

average concentration for each

parameter for which the facility is

required to monitor. If the average

concentration for a pollutant parameter

is less than or equal to the benchmark

value, then the permittee is not required

to conduct analytical monitoring for that

pollutant during the fourth year of the

permit. If, however, the average

concentration for a pollutant is greater

than the benchmark value, then the

permittee is required to conduct

quarterly monitoring for that pollutant

during the fourth year of permit

coverage. Analytical monitoring is not

required during the first, third, and fifth

year of the permit. When average

concentrations exceed benchmark

levels, facilities are encouraged to

conduct more monitoring if appropriate

to identify additional management

practices which may be necessary to

include in their SWPPP. The exclusion

from analytical monitoring in the fourth

year of the permit was conditional on

the facility maintaining industrial

operations and BMPs that will ensure a

quality of storm water discharges

consistent with the average

concentrations recorded during the

second year of the permit. For purposes

of the above monitoring, year 2 runs

from October 1, 2001 to September 30,

2002; year 4 runs from October 1, 2003

to September 30, 2004.

EPA acknowledges that, considering

the small number of samples required

per monitoring year (four), and the

vagaries of storm water discharges, it

may be difficult to determine or confirm

the existence of a discharge problem as

a commenter claimed. When viewed as

an indicator, analytic levels

considerably above benchmark values

can serve as a flag to the operator that

his SWPPP needs to be reevaluated and

that pollutant loads may need to be

reduced. Conversely, analytic levels

below or near benchmarks can confirm

to the operator that his SWPPP is doing

its intended job. EPA believes there is

presently no alternative that provides

stakeholders with an equivalent

indicator of program effectiveness.

Commenters also had concerns that

only four samples and variability in

conditions severely reduce the utility of

monitoring results for judging BMP

effectiveness. While not practicable for

EPA to require an increase in

monitoring, operators are encouraged to

sample more frequently to improve the

statistical validity of their results.

Unless the proper data acquisition

protocol for making a valid BMP

effectiveness determination is rigorously

followed, any other method used to

assess BMP effectiveness would be

qualitative, and therefore less reliable.

The least subjective approach, and most

beneficial to operators and stakeholders,

EPA believes, remains a combination of

visual and analytic monitoring, using

analyte benchmark levels to target

potential problems. Statistical

uncertainties inherent in the monitoring

results will necessitate both operators

and EPA exercising best professional

judgement in interpreting the results. As

stated above, when viewed as an

indicator, analytic levels considerably

above benchmark values can serve as a

flag to the operator that his SWPPP

needs to be reevaluated and that

pollutant loads may need to be reduced.

Conversely, analytic levels below or

near benchmarks can confirm to the

operator that his SWPPP is doing its

intended job.

Commenters had additional concerns

regarding impacts of storm water on

water quality standards and that

monitoring has marginal value in

assessing and protecting water quality.

In the absence of establishing discharge

pollutant levels that correlate directly to

water quality standards, as would be

done for an individual permit, EPA

settled on benchmark levels which

would, under nearly all scenarios, be

protective of water quality standards.

Recognizing the shortcomings of these

generic pollutant levels, EPA only

intends for them to be used as indicators

of possible problems and as a flag to

reevaluate the SWPPP and possibly the

operation of the facility—not as a trigger

to begin mandatory SWPPP or

operational revisions (unless, after

employing BPJ, the operator deems such

revisions are necessary).

Monitoring results also serve as an

oversight tool for EPA to prioritize sites

which may benefit from a site

inspection. A requirement to submit test

results serves as an incentive for the

facility operator to perform the

monitoring and take any necessary

action based on the results.

Some commenters felt the validity of

benchmark values need to be

reevaluated. Universal WQ-based

discharge levels for storm water cannot

be established; the next best thing

would be to determine water segmentspecific total maximum daily loads

(TMDLs) for these discharges. But when

benchmarks are employed merely as

indicators, without requiring specific

corrective actions beyond using best

professional judgement to reassess

present conditions and make any

changes deemed necessary, the present

benchmarks are adequate. In many cases

operators can, upon receipt of analytic

monitoring results above benchmarks,

still conclude their present SWPPPs/

BMPs are adequately protective of water

quality, or that other situations such as

discharging to low-quality, ephemeral

streams may obviate the need for

SWPPP/BMP revisions.

The fact that storm water discharge

pollutant levels could be affected by

atmospheric/dry deposition, run on and

fate in transport, as well as structural

sources, was a concern of a few

commenters. EPA acknowledges the

potential for adding pollutants to a

facility’s discharges from external or

structural sources. Permittees are,

nonetheless, still legally responsible for

the quality of all discharges from their

sites (or any runoff that comes into

contact with their structures, industrial

activities or materials, regardless of

where these are located)—but not from

pollutants that may be introduced into

their discharges outside the boundaries

of their properties. Pollutant levels,

whether elevated from air deposition,

run-on from nearby sites, or leachate

from on-site structures, remain the

responsibility of permittees. This was

affirmed in the ruling by the

Environmental Appeals Board against

the General Motors Corporation CPCPontiac Fiero Plant in December 1997.

a. Other Monitoring Options: There

were various comments for and against

various alternatives to quarterly analytic

monitoring submitted. The other nonanalytic monitoring options are

summarized in the following

paragraphs, along with EPA responses.

b. Visual Monitoring: Numerous

commenters supported dropping

analytic monitoring from the MSGP–

64770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

2000 in favor of just requiring quarterly

visual monitoring. Commenters claimed

visual monitoring is adequate to ensure

compliance and environmental

protection (especially coupled with

training), and is least burdensome.

Quarterly visual monitoring of storm

water discharges has always been a

permit requirement, for many of the

same reasons why commenters favor it,

and will continue to be so. EPA will

also be retaining analytic monitoring

because we believe the best way to

ensure SWPPP effectiveness and

protection of water quality is through a

combination of visual and analytic

monitoring. The reasons for not

adopting visual monitoring only are

explained further in the rationale for

justifying quarterly analytic monitoring.

c. Annual Reporting: One option

suggested by commenters was for an

annual report, possibly using a

standardized form, to be submitted to

EPA detailing the permittee’s SWPPP

highlights and revisions/additions,

inspections, compliance evaluations,

visual monitoring results, etc. This

information is already required to be

documented in a facility’s SWPPP,

which, if deemed necessary, must be

provided to EPA on demand. One

comment against this option stated that

the volume of data submitted would be

too great for the Agency to evaluate.

Other opponents to this option

indicated that the reports would not

contain enough information to evaluate

SWPPP effectiveness, ensure water

quality protection, or provide the

information necessary to make longterm management plans. Commenters in

support of the annual report concept

held that it would provide a record of

the permittee’s commitment to storm

water control, was better for evaluating

SWPPP effectiveness, and would

provide information to EPA to

determine if sampling or a site

inspection is needed.

If no monitoring data were available,

an annual report could be used to

ensure that a facility is implementing its

SWPPP. The reports could also be used

to prioritize sites for inspection.

However, EPA agrees that it would be

very burdensome to review all the

reports and very difficult to assess the

effectiveness of a facility’s SWPPP based

on that review alone. The subjectivity

inherent in annual reporting makes it a

undesirable substitute for analytic

monitoring. Documenting the kind of

information in the annual report is

already a SWPPP requirement, and is

therefore available to operators for

assessing and improving their storm

water programs. For these reasons, EPA

will not require reports containing

essentially the same information

required in SWPPPs to be submitted in

lieu of analytic monitoring.

d. Group Monitoring: Commenters

also suggested group monitoring. In this

option a consortium of like permittees

would do sampling at one facility,

possibly on a rotating basis. The sample

results would represent all the facilities

in the consortium. A variation of group

monitoring is for the consortium to

retain a consultant to do representative

sampling and provide storm water

program guidance and evaluations.

Supporters of this concept said it may

allow for comparisons of effectiveness

of different SWPPP practices (e.g.,

sweeping vs. catchment basin for solids

control). One commenter pointed out

that the feasibility of the group concept

is suspect due to the fact that individual

facilities may have different topography,

soil and other natural conditions. EPA

believes that technically valid BMP

comparisons could be done under this

type of program. However, it would be

difficult and very resource-intensive for

EPA to establish criteria for group

eligibility and then monitor to ensure

that groups met these criteria.

e. Watershed Monitoring: This option

involves replacing the monitoring of

discrete storm water discharges with

ambient receiving water monitoring on

a watershed basis. Watershed

monitoring is invaluable to making real

conclusions regarding storm water

impacts of water quality, and will be

employed in making total maximum

daily load (TMDL). However, watershed

monitoring cannot replace facilityspecific storm water discharge

monitoring to determine the loads

contributed by the facilities and to

evaluate the effectiveness of the SWPPP.

f. Monitoring Only in Impaired

Waters: Several commenters supported

requiring monitoring only in impaired

water bodies and for pollutants that

cause the impairment. Although this

option would focus attention on the

problem water bodies and possible

pollutant sources, EPA and a

commenter point out that not all

impaired water bodies and their

impairments have been determined. The

goal of EPA’s storm water program is

also to protect and maintain water

quality, not just remediate impaired

waters, so focusing on impaired waters

only does not fulfill all the program’s

responsibilities.

2. Compliance Monitoring

Today’s final MSGP retains the same

compliance monitoring requirements as

the 1995 MSGP, and also includes

compliance monitoring requirements for

certain storm water discharges from new

and existing hazardous and nonhazardous landfills. As noted earlier,

EPA has recently finalized effluent

limitations guidelines for these landfills

(65 FR 3007, January 19, 2000) and the

compliance monitoring is required to

ensure compliance with the guidelines.

These discharges must generally be

sampled annually (in some cases

quarterly) and tested for the parameters

which are limited by the permit.

Discharges subject to compliance

monitoring include (in addition to the

landfills discharges): coal pile runoff,

contaminated runoff from phosphate

fertilizer manufacturing facilities, runoff

from asphalt paving and roofing

emulsion production areas, material

storage pile runoff from cement

manufacturing facilities, and mine

dewatering discharges from crushed

stone, construction sand and gravel, and

industrial sand mines located in EPA

Regions 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10. All samples

are to be grabs taken within the first 30

minutes of discharge where practicable,

but in no case later than the first hour

of discharge. Where practicable, the

samples shall be taken from the

discharges subject to the numeric

effluent limitations prior to mixing with

other discharges.

Monitoring for these discharges is

required to determine compliance with

numeric effluent limitations. Discharges

covered under today’s final MSGP

which are subject to numeric effluent

limitations are not eligible for the

alternative certification described in

Section VI.E.3 of this fact sheet.

Where a State or Tribe has imposed a

numeric effluent limitation as a

condition for certification under CWA

§ 401, a default minimum monitoring

frequency of once per year has been

included in the final permit. This

default monitoring frequency would

only apply if a State failed to provided

a monitoring frequency along with their

conditional § 401 certification.

3. Alternate Certification

Today’s final MSGP retains the

provision in the 1995 MSGP for an

alternative certification in lieu of

analytical monitoring. The MSGP

includes monitoring requirements for

facilities which the Agency believes

have the potential for contributing

significant levels of pollutants to storm

water discharges. The alternative

certification described below is

included in the permit to ensure that

monitoring requirements are only

imposed on those facilities which do, in

fact, have storm water discharges

containing pollutants at concentrations

of concern. EPA has determined that if

there are no sources of a pollutant

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64771

exposed to storm water at the site then

the potential for that pollutant to

contaminate storm water discharges

does not warrant monitoring.

A discharger is not subject to the

analytical monitoring requirements

provided the discharger makes a

certification for a given outfall, on a

pollutant-by-pollutant basis, that

material handling equipment or

activities, raw materials, intermediate

products, final products, waste

materials, by-products, industrial

machinery or operations, significant

materials from past industrial activity

that are located in areas of the facility

that are within the drainage area of the

outfall are not presently exposed to

storm water and will not be exposed to

storm water for the certification period.

Such certification must be retained in

the SWPPP, and submitted to EPA in

lieu of monitoring reports required

under Part 7 of the permit. The

permittee is required to complete any

and all sampling until the exposure is

eliminated. If the facility is reporting for

a partial year, the permittee must

specify the date exposure was

eliminated. If the permittee is certifying

that a pollutant was present for part of

the reporting period, nothing relieves

the permittee from the responsibility to

sample that parameter up until the

exposure was eliminated and it was

determined that no significant materials

remained. This certification is not to be

confused with the low concentration

sampling waiver. The test for the

application of this certification is

whether the pollutant is exposed, or can

be expected to be present in the storm

water discharge. If the facility does not

and has not used a parameter, or if

exposure is eliminated and no

significant materials remain, then the

facility can exercise this certification.

As noted above, the MSGP does not

allow facilities with discharges subject

to numeric effluent limitations

guidelines to submit alternative

certification in lieu of compliance

monitoring requirements. The permit

also does not allow air transportation

facilities or hard rock mines subject to

the analytical monitoring requirements

in Part 6 of the final MSGP to exercise

an alternative certification.

A facility is not precluded from

exercising the alternative certification in

lieu of analytical monitoring

requirements in the second or fourth

year of the reissued MSGP, even if that

facility has failed to qualify for a low

concentration waiver thus far. EPA

encourages facilities to eliminate

exposure of industrial activities and

significant materials where practicable.

4. Reporting and Retention

Requirements

Like the 1995 MSGP, today’s final

MSGP requires that permittees submit

all analytical monitoring results

obtained during the second and fourth

year of permit coverage. As noted

earlier, year 2 runs from October 1, 2001

to September 30, 2002; year 4 runs from

October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004.

Monitoring results must be submitted by

January 28, 2003 for year 2 monitoring

and January 28, 2005 for year 4

monitoring.

For each outfall, one Discharge

Monitoring Report (DMR) form must be

submitted per storm event sampled. For

facilities conducting monitoring beyond

the minimum requirements, an

additional DMR form must be filed for

each analysis. The permittee must

include a measurement or estimate of

the total precipitation, volume of runoff,

and peak flow rate of runoff for each

storm event sampled. Permittees subject

to compliance monitoring requirements

are required to submit all compliance

monitoring results annually by October

28 following each annual sampling

period (which run from October 1 of

each year to September 30 of the

following year). Compliance monitoring

results must be submitted on signed

DMR forms. For each outfall, one DMR

form must be submitted for each storm

event sampled.

Permittees are not required to submit

records of the visual examinations of

storm water discharges unless

specifically asked to do so by the

Director. Records of the visual

examinations must be maintained at the

facility. Records of visual examination

of storm water discharge need not be

lengthy. Permittees may prepare typed

or hand written reports using forms or

tables which they may develop for their

facility. The report need only document:

the date and time of the examination;

the name of the individual making the

examination; and any observations of

color, odor, clarity, floating solids,

suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, and

other obvious indicators of storm water

pollution.

The address for submission of DMR

forms for today’s final MSGP is as

follows: MSGP DMR (4203), U.S. EPA,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Under the 1995 MSGP, DMRs had

been sent to the EPA Regional Offices.

However, to facilitate review of all

DMRs from facilities operating under

the MSGP, the final MSGP requires that

they be sent to the one location

specified above.

Today’s final MSGP also retains the

requirement in the 1995 MSGP that

permittees submit signed copies of

DMRs to the operator of a large or

medium MS4 (those which serve a

population of 100,000 or more), if there

are discharges of storm water associated

with industrial activity through the

MS4.

The location for submission of all

reports (other than DMRs) for today’s

final MSGP remains the EPA Regional

Offices as found in Part 8.3 of the final

permit. Consistent with Office of

Management and Budget Circular A–

105, facilities located on the following

Federal Indian Reservations, which

cross EPA Regional boundaries, should

note that permitting authority for such

lands is consolidated in one single EPA

Region.

a. Duck Valley Reservations lands,

located in Regions 9 and 10, are handled

by Region 9.

b. Fort McDermitt Reservation lands,

located in Regions 9 and 10, are handled

by Region 9.

c. Goshute Reservation lands, located

in Regions 8 and 9, are handled by

Region 9.

d. Navajo Reservation lands, located

in Regions 6, 8, and 9, are handled by

Region 9.

e. Ute Mountain Reservation lands,

located in Regions 6 and 8, are handled

Region 8.

Pursuant to the requirements of 40

CFR 122.41(j), today’s MSGP (like the

1995 MSGP) requires permittees to

retain all records for a minimum of

three years from the date of the

sampling, examination, or other activity

that generated the data.

5. Sample Type

Today’s final MSGP retains the same

requirements regarding the type of

sampling as the 1995 MSGP. A general

description is provided below. Certain

industries have different requirements.

Permittees should check the industryspecific requirements in Part 6 of the

final permit to confirm these

requirements. Grab samples may be

used for all monitoring unless otherwise

stated. All such samples shall be

collected from the discharge resulting

from a storm event that is greater than

0.1 inches in magnitude and that occurs

at least 72 hours from the previously

measurable (greater than 0.1 inch

rainfall) storm event. The required 72-

hour storm event interval may be

waived by the permittee where the

preceding measurable storm event did

not result in a measurable discharge

from the facility. The 72-hour

requirement may also be waived by the

permittee where the permittee

64772 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

documents that less than a 72-hour

interval is representative for local storm

events during the season when sampling

is being conducted. The grab sample

must be taken during the first 30

minutes of the discharge. If the

collection of a grab sample during the

first 30 minutes is impracticable, a grab

sample can be taken during the first

hour of the discharge, and the

discharger must submit with the

monitoring report a description of why

a grab sample during the first 30

minutes was impracticable. A minimum

of one grab is required. Where the

discharge to be sampled contains both

storm water and non-storm water, the

facility shall sample the storm water

component of the discharge at a point

upstream of the location where the nonstorm water mixes with the storm water,

if practicable.

6. Representative Discharge

Today’s MSGP retains the same

provision as the 1995 MSGP regarding

substantially identical outfalls which

allows a facility to reduce its overall

monitoring burden. This representative

discharge provision provides facilities

with multiple storm water outfalls, a

means for reducing the number of

outfalls that must be sampled and

analyzed. This may result in a

substantial reduction of the resources

required for a facility to comply with

analytical monitoring requirements.

When a facility has two or more outfalls

that, based on a consideration of

industrial activity, significant materials,

and management practices and activities

within the area drained by the outfall,

the permittee reasonably believes

discharge substantially identical

effluents, the permittee may test the

effluent of one such outfall and report

that the quantitative data also apply to

the substantially identical outfalls

provided that the permittee includes in

the SWPPP a description of the location

of the outfalls and detailed explanation

why the outfalls are expected to

discharge substantially identical

effluent. In addition, for each outfall

that the permittee believes is

representative, an estimate of the size of

the drainage area (in square feet) and an

estimate of the runoff coefficient of the

drainage area (e.g., low (under 40

percent), medium (40 to 65 percent) or

high (above 65 percent)) shall be

provided in the plan. Facilities that

select and sample a representative

discharge are prohibited from changing

the selected discharge in future

monitoring periods unless the selected

discharge ceases to be representative or

is eliminated. Permittees do not need

EPA approval to claim discharges are

representative, provided they have

documented their rationale within the

SWPPP. However, the Director may

determine the discharges are not

representative and require sampling of

all non-identical outfalls.

The representative discharge

provision in the permit is available to

almost all facilities subject to the

analytical monitoring requirements (not

including compliance monitoring for

effluent guideline limit compliance

purposes) and to facilities subject to

visual examination requirements.

The representative discharge

provisions described above are

consistent with Section 5.2 of NPDES

Storm Water Sampling Guidance

Document (EPA 833–B–92–001, July

1992).

7. Sampling Waiver

Today’s final MSGP retains the same

provisions for sampling waivers (as

discussed below) which are found in the

1995 MSGP:

a. Adverse Weather Conditions.

Today’s final MSGP 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. When a discharger is unable

to collect samples within a specified

sampling period due to adverse climatic

conditions, the discharger shall collect a

substitute sample from a separate

qualifying event in the next sampling

period as well as a sample for the

routine monitoring required in that

period. Both samples should be

analyzed separately and the results of

that analysis submitted to EPA.

Permittees are not required to obtain

advance approval for sampling waivers.

b. Unstaffed and Inactive Sites—

Chemical Sampling Waiver. Today’s

final MSGP allows for a waiver from

sampling for facilities that are both

inactive and unstaffed. This waiver is

only intended to apply to these facilities

where lack of personnel and locational

impediments hinder the ability to

conduct sampling (i.e., the ability to

meet the time and representative rainfall

sampling specifications). This waiver is

not intended to apply to remote

facilities that are active and staffed, or

to facilities with just difficult logistical

conditions. When a discharger is unable

to collect samples as specified in this

permit, the discharger shall certify to

the Director in the DMR that the facility

is unstaffed and inactive and the ability

to conduct samples within the

specifications is not possible. Permittees

are not required to obtain advance

approval for this waiver.

c. Unstaffed and Inactive Sites—

Visual Monitoring Waiver. Today’s final

MSGP allows for a waiver from

sampling for facilities that are both

inactive and unstaffed. This waiver is

only intended to apply to these facilities

where lack of personnel and locational

impediments hinder the ability to

conduct visual examinations (i.e., the

ability to meet the time and

representative rainfall sampling

specifications). This monitoring waiver

is not intended to apply to remote

facilities that are active and staffed, or

to facilities with just difficult logistical

conditions. When a discharger is unable

to perform visual examinations as

specified in this permit, the discharger

shall maintain on site with the pollution

prevention plan a certification stating

that the facility is unstaffed and inactive

and the ability to perform visual

examinations within the specifications

is not possible. Permittees are not

required to obtain advance approval for

visual examination waivers.

8. Quarterly Visual Examination of

Storm Water Quality

Today’s final MSGP retains the

requirements of the 1995 MSGP for

quarterly visual examinations of storm

water discharges which EPA continues

to believe provide a useful and

inexpensive means for permittees to

evaluate the effectiveness of their

SWPPPs (with immediate feedback) and

make any necessary modifications to

address the results of the visual

examinations. All sectors of today’s

final MSGP are required to conduct

these examinations. In the 1995 MSGP

all sectors except Sector S (which covers

air transportation) were required to

conduct the examinations.

Basically, the MSGP requires that grab

samples of storm water discharges be

taken and examined visually for the

presence of color, odor, clarity, floating

solids, settled solids, suspended solids,

foam, oil sheen or other obvious

indicators of storm water pollution. The

grab samples must be taken within the

first 30 minutes after storm water

discharges begin, or as soon as

practicable, but not longer than 1 hour

after discharges begin. The sampling

must be conducted quarterly during the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64773

following time periods: January–March,

April–June, July–September and

October–December of each year. The

reports summarizing these quarterly

visual storm water examinations must

be maintained on-site with the SWPPP.

The examination of the sample must

be made in well lit areas. The visual

examination is not required if there is

insufficient rainfall or snow-melt to run

off or if hazardous conditions prevent

sampling. Whenever practicable the

same individual should carry out the

collection and examination of

discharges throughout the life of the

permit to ensure the greatest degree of

consistency possible in recording

observations.

When conducting a storm water

visual examination, the pollution

prevention team, or team member,

should attempt to relate the results of

the examination to potential sources of

storm water contamination on the site.

For example, if the visual examination

reveals an oil sheen, the facility

personnel (preferably members of the

pollution prevention team) should

conduct an inspection of the area of the

site draining to the examined discharge

to look for obvious sources of spilled

oil, leaks, etc. If a source can be located,

then this information allows the facility

operator to immediately conduct a

clean-up of the pollutant source, and/or

to design a change to the SWPPP to

eliminate or minimize the contaminant

source from occurring in the future.

Other examples include: if the visual

examination results in an observation of

floating solids, the personnel should

carefully examine the solids to see if

they are raw materials, waste materials

or other known products stored or used

at the site. If an unusual color or odor

is sensed, the personnel should attempt

to compare the color or odor to the

colors or odors of known chemicals and

other materials used at the facility. If the

examination reveals a large amount of

settled solids, the personnel may check

for unpaved, unstabilized areas or areas

of erosion. If the examination results in

a cloudy sample that is very slow to

settle out, the personnel should evaluate

the site draining to the discharge point

for fine particulate material, such as

dust, ash, or other pulverized, ground,

or powdered chemicals.

To be most effective, the personnel

conducting the visual examination

should be fully knowledgeable about the

SWPPP, the sources of contaminants on

the site, the industrial activities

conducted exposed to storm water and

the day to day operations that may

cause unexpected pollutant releases.

If the visual examination results in a

clean and clear sample of the storm

water discharge, this may indicate that

no pollutants are present. This would be

an indication of a high quality result.

However, the visual examination will

not provide information about dissolved

contamination. If the facility is in a

sector or subsector required to conduct

analytical (chemical) monitoring, the

results of the chemical monitoring, if

conducted on the same sample, would

help to identify the presence of any

dissolved pollutants and the ultimate

effectiveness of the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan. If the facility

is not required to conduct analytical

monitoring, it may do so if it chooses to

confirm the cleanliness of the sample.

While conducting the visual

examinations, personnel should

constantly be attempting to relate any

contamination that is observed in the

samples to the sources of pollutants on

site. When contamination is observed,

the personnel should be evaluating

whether or not additional BMPs should

be implemented in the SWPPP to

address the observed contaminant and,

if BMPs have already been

implemented, evaluating whether or not

these are working correctly or need

maintenance. Permittees may also

conduct more frequent visual

examinations than the minimum

quarterly requirement, if they so choose.

By doing so, they may improve their

ability to ascertain the effectiveness of

their plan. Using this guidance, and

employing a strong knowledge of the

facility operations, EPA believes that

permittees should be able to maximize

the effectiveness of their storm water

pollution prevention efforts through

conducting visual examinations which

give direct, frequent feedback to the

facility operator or pollution prevention

team on the quality of the storm water

discharge.

EPA believes that this quick and

simple assessment will help the

permittee to determine the effectiveness

of his/her plan on a regular basis at very

little cost. Although the visual

examination cannot assess the chemical

properties of the storm water discharged

from the site, the examination will

provide meaningful results upon which

the facility may act quickly. EPA

recommends that the visual

examination be conducted at different

times than the chemical monitoring, but

is not requiring this. In addition, more

frequent visual examinations can be

conducted if the permittee so chooses.

In this way, better assessments of the

effectiveness of the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan can be

achieved. The frequency of this visual

examination will also allow for timely

adjustments to be made to the plan. If

BMPs are performing ineffectively,

corrective action must be implemented.

A set of tracking or followup procedures

must be used to ensure that appropriate

actions are taken in response to the

examinations. The visual examination is

intended to be performed by members of

the pollution prevention team. This

hands-on examination will enhance the

staff’s understanding of the site’s storm

water problems and the effects of the

management practices that are included

in the plan.

F. Regional Offices

1. Notice of Intent Address

Notices of Intent to be authorized to

discharge under the MSGP should be

sent to: Storm Water Notice of Intent

(4203), USEPA, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

2. EPA Regional Office Addresses and

Contacts

For further information, please call

the appropriate EPA Regional storm

water contacts listed below:

• ME, MA, NH, Indian country in CT,

MA, ME, RI, and Federal Facilities in

VT

EPA Region 1, Office of Ecosystem

Protection, JFK Federal Building (CMU),

Boston, MA 02203, Contact: Thelma

Murphy (617) 918–1615.

• PR

U.S. EPA, Region 2, Caribbean

Environmental Protection Division,

Centro Europa Building, 1492 Ponce de

Leon Avenue, Suite 417, San Juan,

Puerto Rico 00907–4127, Contact: Sergio

Bosques (787) 729–6951.

• DC and Federal Facilities in DE

EPA Region 3, Water Protection

Division, (3WP13), Storm Water Staff,

841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

PA 19107, Contact: Cheryl Atkinson

(215) 814–3392.

• Indian country in FL

EPA Region 4, Water Management

Division, Surface Water Permits Section

(SWPFB), 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, GA 30303–3104, Contact: Floyd

Wellborn (404) 562–9296.

64774 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

• NM; Indian country in LA, OK, TX

and NM (Except Navajo and Ute

Mountain Reservation Lands); oil and

gas exploration and production related

industries, and pipeline operations in

OK (which under State law are

regulated by the Oklahoma Corporation

Commission and not the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality);

and oil and gas sites in TX.

EPA Region 6, NPDES Permits Section

(6WQ-PP), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

TX 75202–2733, Contact: Brent Larsen

(214) 665–7523.

• Federal facilities in the State of

Colorado; Indian country in CO, ND,

SD, WY and UT (except Goshute and

Navajo Reservation lands); Ute

Mountain Reservation lands in CO and

NM ; and Pine Ridge Reservation lands

in SD and NE.

EPA Region 8, Ecosystems Pr.otection

Program (8EPR–EP), 999 18th Street,

Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202–2466

Contact: Vern Berry (303) 312–6234.

• AZ, American Samoa,

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana

Islands, Johnston Atoll, Guam, Midway

Island and Wake Island; all Indian

country in AZ, CA, and NV; those

portions of the Duck Valley, Fort

McDermitt and Goshute Reservations

that are outside NV; those portions of

the Navajo Reservation that are outside

AZ.

EPA Region 9, Water Management

Division, (WTR–5), Storm Water Staff,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, Contact: Eugene Bromley (415)

744–1906.

• ID; Indian country in AK, ID (except

the Duck Valley Reservation), OR

(except the Fort McDermitt

Reservation), and WA; and Federal

facilities in WA

EPA Region 10, Office of Water (OW–

130), Storm Water Staff, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, Contact:

Misha Vakoc (206) 553–6650 (toll-free

in Region 10 states: 800–424–4372,

extension 6650).

VII. Cost Estimates for Common Permit

Requirements

Cost estimates for the MSGP were

included with the final fact sheet

accompanying the issuance of the MSGP

on September 29, 1995 and are not

being repeated here. However,

additional costs for facilities seeking

coverage under the reissued MSGP

should be minor since the new MSGP

includes few changes from the 1995

MSGP.

VIII. Special Requirements for

Discharges Associated With Specific

Industrial Activities

Section VIII of the fact sheet

accompanying the 1995 MSGP included

a detailed description of the industrial

sectors covered by the permit, sources of

pollutants from the different types of

industries, available industry-specific

BMPs, and a description of the

industrial-specific permit requirements.

As noted previously, EPA is not

repeating all this information due to its

considerable length. Table 1 in Section

IV of this fact sheet listed the industrial

sectors and subsectors covered by

today’s final MSGP. For today’s MSGP,

EPA reviewed the various sectors and

subsectors to determine whether

additional BMP opportunities have been

identified subsequent to the issuance of

the 1995 MSGP which would be

appropriate to include in the reissued

MSGP.

To update the various sectors and

subsectors, EPA reviewed a variety of

sources of information. As noted in

Section VI.C of this fact sheet, pollution

prevention is the cornerstone of the

NPDES storm water permit program

and, as such, EPA focused on new

pollution prevention opportunities in

updating the sectors. EPA has several

ongoing programs directed toward

identifying additional pollution

prevention opportunities for different

industrial sectors. One example is the

‘‘sector notebooks’’ which EPA’s Office

of Compliance has published covering

28 different industries, including many

of those covered by the MSGP. EPA’s

Design for the Environment Program

and Common Sense Initiative are

additional examples. States,

municipalities, industry trade

associations and individual companies

have also been active in recent years in

trying to identify additional pollution

prevention opportunities for different

types of industries.

In reviewing the new information,

however, EPA has identified only a few

sectors where there appear to be

additional storm water BMPs which

would be appropriate for the reissued

MSGP. For many industries, while

considerable work has been conducted

to reduce the environmental effects of

these industries, little of the work has

focused specifically on storm water.

Rather, the efforts have focused more in

areas such as manufacturing process

changes to reduce hazardous waste

generation or to reduce pollutant

discharges in process wastewater.

Where additional storm water BMPs

have been identified and incorporated

into the reissued MSGP, these new

requirements are discussed below by

sector. In some sectors, additional

language clarifying the permit

requirements has been added and these

changes are also discussed below.

A. Sectors C—Chemical and Allied

Products Facilities

Industry-specific requirements for the

manufacture of fertilizer from leather

scraps (SIC 2873) was moved from

Sector Z (Leather Tanning and

Finishing) to Sector C. This change

places the requirements for SIC 2873 in

the same sector as other manufacturers

of fertilizers.

B. Sector G—Metal Mining (Ore Dressing

and Mining)

To clarify the applicability of the

MSGP regarding construction activity at

metal mining sites and to make metal

mining requirements consistent with

mineral mining provisions (Sector J),

Sector G has been modified to indicate

that earth-disturbing activities occurring

in the ‘‘exploration and construction

phase’’ of a mining operation must be

covered under EPA’s Construction

General Permit (63 FR 7858, February

17, 1998) if the area disturbed is one

acre or more. All mining exploration/

construction operations of less than one

acre must be covered under the MSGP–

2000.

Today’s MSGP also incorporates the

MSGP modifications of August 7, 1998

(63 FR 42534) regarding storm water

discharges from waste rock and

overburden piles. On October 10, 1995,

the National Mining Association

challenged the interpretation set forth in

Table G–4 of the 1995 MSGP that runoff

from waste rock and overburden piles

would categorically be considered mine

drainage subject to effluent limitations

guidelines (ELGs) at 40 CFR Part 440.

The litigation was settled on August 7,

1998 with a revised interpretation by

EPA of the applicability of the ELGs

which is incorporated into today’s

MSGP. Under the revised interpretation,

runoff from waste rock and overburden

piles is not subject to ELGs unless it

naturally drains (or is intentionally

diverted) to a point source and

combines with ‘‘mine drainage’’ that is

otherwise subject to the ELGs.

The August 7, 1998 modification of

the MSGP provided permit coverage for

storm water discharges from waste rock

and overburden piles which are not

subject to ELGs. However, due to

concerns regarding potential pollutants

in the discharges, additional monitoring

requirements were included in the

permit to determine the pollutant

concentrations in the discharges. These

monitoring requirements are also

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64775

included in today’s MSGP. The

monitoring results which have been

submitted to EPA pursuant to these

requirements were also considered in

determining the monitoring

requirements for today’s permit for this

sector.

Concerns were expressed by some

commenters over the use of the term

‘‘Numeric limitation’’ in the headings in

the tables in Sector G in the proposed

MSGP. However, since there are no

actual numeric limitations in the tables,

EPA believes this concern is not

justified and the final MSGP has not

been modified in response to these

comments. In response to other

comments, the revised Table G–4 from

the August 7, 1998 MSGP modification

has been added to the permit in Part

6.G.

In response to comments received on

the proposed MSGP, the language in

Part 6.G.1.6.6 of the final MSGP was

modified to indicate that a permittee

may test ‘‘or evaluate’’ mining-related

discharges for non-storm water

discharges to make today’s MSGP

consistent with the 1995 MSGP.

Also in response to comments, the

permit language in the final MSGP

which defines the reclamation phase

was modified to reflect post-mining

land uses other than ‘‘pre-mining state’’

which had been in the proposed MSGP.

In addition, the final MSGP has been

clarified to indicate that sampling

waivers in Part 5.3.1 of the MSGP do

apply to Sector G.

C. Sector I—Oil and Gas Extraction and

Refining

In response to a comment, the title for

Sector I was changed to include

‘‘Refining’’ to clarify that runoff from

refineries (except runoff subject to

effluent limitations guidelines) is

eligible for coverage under today’s

MSGP.

D. Sector J—Mineral Mining and

Processing

EPA has re-evaluated the provisions

of the 1995 MSGP for industrial

facilities in Sector J to determine

whether these provisions need to be

updated for the reissued MSGP. To

clarify the applicability of the MSGP

regarding construction activity at

mineral mining sites and to make

mineral mining requirements consistent

with metal mining provisions (Sector

G), Sector J has been modified to

indicate that earth-disturbing activities

occurring in the ‘‘exploration and

construction phase’’ of a mining

operation must be covered under EPA’s

Construction General Permit (63 FR

7858, February 17, 1998) if the area

disturbed is one acre or more. All

mining exploration/construction

operations of less than one acre must be

covered under the MSGP–2000.

E. Sector K—Hazardous Waste

Treatment, Storage or Disposal

Facilities

EPA has re-evaluated the provisions

of the 1995 MSGP for industrial

facilities in Sector K to determine

whether these provisions need to be

updated for the reissued MSGP. On

January 19, 2000 (65 FR 3008), EPA

promulgated final effluent limitations

guidelines (ELGs) for ‘‘contaminated

storm water discharges’’ from new and

existing hazardous landfill facilities

regulated under RCRA Subtitle C at 40

CFR Parts 264 (Subpart N) and 265

(Subpart N), except for the following

‘‘captive’’ landfills:

(a) Landfills operated in conjunction

with other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill only

receives wastes generated by the

industrial or commercial operation

directly associated with the landfill;

(b) Landfills operated in conjunction

with other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill receives

wastes generated by the industrial or

commercial operation directly

associated with the landfill and also

receives other wastes provided the other

wastes received for disposal are

generated by a facility that is subject to

the same provisions in 40 CFR

Subchapter N as the industrial or

commercial operation or the other

wastes received are of similar nature to

the wastes generated by the industrial or

commercial operation;

(c) Landfills operated in conjunction

with Centralized Waste Treatment

(CWT) facilities subject to 40 CFR Part

437 so long as the CWT facility

commingles the landfill wastewater

with other non-landfill wastewater for

discharge. A landfill directly associated

with a CWT facility is subject to this

part if the CWT facility discharges

landfill wastewater separately from

other CWT wastewater or commingles

the wastewater from its landfill only

with wastewater from other landfills; or

(d) Landfills operated in conjunction

with other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill receives

wastes from public service activities so

long as the company owning the landfill

does not receive a fee or other

remuneration for the disposal service.

For Sector K of the new MSGP, EPA

has included the new ELGs (40 CFR Part

445 Subpart A) for hazardous landfill

facilities.

The term ‘‘contaminated storm water’’

is defined in the ELGs as ‘‘storm water

which comes in direct contact with

landfill wastes, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or landfill wastewater.’’

[40 CFR 445.2]. Contaminated storm

water may originate from areas at a

landfill including (but not limited to):

‘‘the open face of an active landfill with

exposed waste (no cover added); the

areas around wastewater treatment

operations; trucks, equipment or

machinery that has been in direct

contact with the waste; and waste

dumping areas.’’ [40 CFR 445.2].

The term ‘‘non-contaminated storm

water’’ is defined in the ELGs as ‘‘storm

water which does not come in direct

contact with landfill wastes, the waste

handling and treatment areas, or landfill

wastewater.’’ [40 CFR 445.2]. Noncontaminated storm water includes

storm water which ‘‘flows off the cap,

cover, intermediate cover, daily cover,

and/or final cover of the landfill.’’ [40

CFR 445.2].

The term ‘‘landfill wastewater’’ is

defined in the ELGs as ‘‘all wastewater

associated with, or produced by,

landfilling activities except for sanitary

wastewater, non-contaminated storm

water, contaminated groundwater, and

wastewater from recovery pumping

wells. Landfill wastewater includes, but

is not limited to, leachate, gas collection

condensate, drained free liquids,

laboratory derived wastewater,

contaminated storm water and contact

washwater from washing truck,

equipment, and railcar exteriors and

surface areas which have come in direct

contact with solid waste at the landfill

facility.’’

The 1995 MSGP authorized

discharges of storm water associated

with industrial activity which includes

contaminated storm water discharges (as

defined above) as well as other noncontaminated storm water discharges

(also defined above). Today’s final

MSGP continues to authorize storm

water associated with industrial

activity; however, for contaminated

storm water discharges as defined

above, the reissued MSGP requires

compliance with the promulgated ELGs

for such discharges (with monitoring

once/year during each year of the term

of the final MSGP). The ELGs for the

new and existing hazardous landfills are

found in Table K–1 below:

TABLE K–1—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

GUIDELINES FOR CONTAMINATED

STORM WATER DISCHARGES (MG/L)

Pollutant

Maximum for

1 day

Monthly

average

maximum

BOD5 ......................... 220 56

64776 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE K–1—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

GUIDELINES FOR CONTAMINATED

STORM WATER DISCHARGES (MG/

L)—Continued

Pollutant

Maximum for

1 day

Monthly

average

maximum

TSS ............................ 88 27

Ammonia .................... 10 4.9

Alpha Terpineol .......... 0.042 0.019

Aniline ........................ 0.024 0.015

Benzoic Acid .............. 0.119 0.073

Naphthalene ............... 0.059 0.022

p-Cresol ...................... 0.024 0.015

Phenol ........................ 0.048 0.029

Pyridine ...................... 0.072 0.025

Arsenic (Total) ............ 1.1 0.54

Chromium (Total) ....... 1.1 0.46

Zinc (Total) ................. 0.535 0.296

pH ............................... Within the range of

6–9 pH units.

Today’s final MSGP (like the 1995

MSGP) does not authorize non-storm

water discharges such as leachate and

vehicle and equipment washwater.

These and other landfill-generated

wastewaters are subject to the ELGs.

Today’s final MSGP does, however,

continue to authorize certain minor

non-storm water discharges (listed in

Part 1.2.2.2) which are very similar to

the 1995 MSGP.

F. Sector L—Landfills, Land Application

Sites and Open Dumps

EPA has re-evaluated the provisions

of the 1995 MSGP for industrial

facilities in Sector L to determine

whether these provisions need to be

updated for the reissued MSGP. The

SWPPP requirements of the 1995 MSGP

already include several special BMPs for

this industry in addition to the MSGP’s

basic BMP requirements.

On January 19, 2000 (65 FR 3008),

EPA promulgated final effluent

limitations guidelines (ELGs) for

‘‘contaminated storm water discharges’’

from new and existing non-hazardous

landfill facilities regulated under RCRA

Subtitle D (40 CFR Part 445 Subpart B).

For Sector L of today’s MSGP, EPA has

included the ELGs as they apply to

facilities covered by this sector. For

Sector L facilities, the ELGs apply to:

Municipal solid waste landfills

regulated under RCRA Subtitle D at 40

CFR Part 258 and those landfills which

are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR

Part 257, except for any of the following

‘‘captive’’ landfills:

(a) Landfills operated in conjunction

with other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill only

receives wastes generated by the

industrial or commercial operation

directly associated with the landfill;

(b) Landfills operated in conjunction

with other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill receives

wastes generated by the industrial or

commercial operation directly

associated with the landfill and also

receives other wastes provided the other

wastes received for disposal are

generated by a facility that is subject to

the same provisions in 40 CFR

Subchapter N as the industrial or

commercial operation or the other

wastes received are of similar nature to

the wastes generated by the industrial or

commercial operation;

(c) Landfills operated in conjunction

with Centralized Waste Treatment

(CWT) facilities subject to 40 CFR Part

437 so long as the CWT facility

commingles the landfill wastewater

with other non-landfill wastewater for

discharge. A landfill directly associated

with a CWT facility is subject to this

part if the CWT facility discharges

landfill wastewater separately from

other CWT wastewater or commingles

the wastewater from its landfill only

with wastewater from other landfills; or

(d) Landfills operated in conjunction

with other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill receives

wastes from public service activities so

long as the company owning the landfill

does not receive a fee or other

remuneration for the disposal service.

EPA has not modified Sector L for the

discharges which are not subject to the

ELGs. In addition, EPA would like to

call attention to a new EPA publication

entitled ‘‘Guide for Industrial Waste

Management’’ (EPA 530–R–99–001,

June, 1999) which provides a useful

information resource for permittees in

complying with the MSGP, and in

minimizing the impact of landfills to the

environment overall.

The term ‘‘contaminated storm water’’

is defined in the ELGs as ‘‘storm water

which comes in direct contact with

landfill wastes, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or landfill wastewater.’’

[40 CFR 445.2]. Contaminated storm

water may originate from areas at a

landfill including (but not limited to):

‘‘the open face of an active landfill with

exposed waste (no cover added); the

areas around wastewater treatment

operations; trucks, equipment or

machinery that has been in direct

contact with the waste; and waste

dumping areas.’’ [40 CFR 445.2].

The term ‘‘non-contaminated storm

water’’ is defined in the ELGs as ‘‘storm

water which does not come in direct

contact with landfill wastes, the waste

handling and treatment areas, or landfill

wastewater.’’ [40 CFR 445.2]. Noncontaminated storm water includes

storm water which ‘‘flows off the cap,

cover, intermediate cover, daily cover,

and/or final cover of the landfill.’’ [40

CFR 445.2].

The term ‘‘landfill wastewater’’ is

defined in the ELGs as ‘‘all wastewater

associated with, or produced by,

landfilling activities except for sanitary

wastewater, non-contaminated storm

water, contaminated groundwater, and

wastewater from recovery pumping

wells. Landfill wastewater includes, but

is not limited to, leachate, gas collection

condensate, drained free liquids,

laboratory derived wastewater,

contaminated storm water and contact

washwater from washing truck,

equipment, and railcar exteriors and

surface areas which have come in direct

contact with solid waste at the landfill

facility.’’ [40 CFR 445.2].

The 1995 MSGP authorized

discharges of storm water associated

with industrial activity from landfills

including contaminated storm water

discharges as defined in the ELGs as

well as non-contaminated storm water.

Today’s final MSGP continues to

authorize storm water associated with

industrial activity; however, for

contaminated storm water discharges as

defined above, today’s MSGP requires

compliance with the promulgated ELGs

for such discharges (with monitoring

once/year during each year of the term

of the final MSGP). The ELGs are found

in Table L–1 below:

TABLE L–1—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

GUIDELINES FOR CONTAMINATED

STORM WATER DISCHARGES (MG/L)

Pollutant

Maximum for

1 Day

Monthly

average

maximum

BOD5 ......................... 140 37

TSS ............................ 88 27

Ammonia .................... 10 4.9

Alpha Terpineol .......... 0.033 0.016

Benzoic Acid .............. 0.12 0.071

p-Cresol ...................... 0.025 0.014

Phenol ........................ 0.026 0.015

Zinc (Total) ................. 0.20 0.11

pH ............................... within the range of

6–9 pH units.

Today’s final MSGP (like the 1995

MSGP) does not authorize non-storm

water discharges such as leachate and

vehicle and equipment washwater.

These and other landfill-generated

wastewaters are subject to the ELGs.

Today’s MSGP does, however, continue

to authorize the same minor non-storm

water discharges (listed in Part 1.2.2.2)

as the 1995 MSGP.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64777

G. Sector S—Air Transportation

Facilities

EPA has re-evaluated the provisions

of the 1995 MSGP for industrial

facilities in Sector S to determine

whether these provisions need to be

updated for the reissued MSGP. The

SWPPP requirements of the 1995 MSGP

included several special BMP

requirements for airports in addition to

the MSGP’s basic BMP requirements.

Additional technologies have been

developed since the original MSGP

issuance for deicing operations which

have been included in today’s MSGP. A

lengthy (but not comprehensive) list of

new deicing chemical and BMP options

is provided in Parts 6.S.5.3.6.2 and

6.S.5.3.7. More information on these

options is found in the EPA publication

‘‘Preliminary Data Summary, Airport

Deicing Operations’’ (http://

www.epa.gov/ost/guide/airport/

index.html).

The MSGP–2000 has been clarified

such that compliance evaluations (Part

6.S.5.5) shall be conducted during a

period when deicing activities are likely

to occur (vs. a month when deicing

activities would be atypical or during an

extended heat wave), not necessarily

during an actual storm or when intense

deicing activities are occurring. This

requirement is not seen as onerous, as

EPA believes that most weather

conditions can be reasonably

anticipated and the evaluation can be

planned for.

In addition, EPA has revised Part

6.S.5.4 to reflect that monthly

inspections of deicing areas during the

deicing season (e.g., October through

April) are now allowed at airports with

highly effective, rigorously

implemented SWPPPs. This

requirement is a reduction from the

previous MSGP’s weekly requirement.

However, if unusually large amounts of

deicing fluids are being applied, spilled

or discharged, weekly inspections

should be conducted and the Director

may specifically require such weekly

inspections. In addition, personnel who

participate in deicing activities or work

in these areas should, as the need arises,

inform the monthly inspectors of any

conditions or incidents constituting an

environmental threat, especially those

needing immediate attention.

H. Sector T—Treatment Works

EPA has re-evaluated the provisions

of the 1995 MSGP for industrial

facilities in Sector T to determine

whether these provisions need to be

updated for the reissued MSGP. The

SWPPP requirements of the 1995 MSGP

already include a few special BMP

requirements for this industry in

addition to the MSGP’s basic BMP

requirements. In reviewing the

information which EPA has available on

this industry, EPA has identified several

additional areas at treatment works

facilities which we believe should be

considered more closely for potential

storm water controls. As a result, EPA

has included additional or modified

permit requirements which we believe

are appropriate to include in Sector T.

Today’s MSGP requires that operators

of Sector T treatment works include the

following additional areas or activities,

where they are exposed to precipitation,

in their SWPPP site map, summary of

potential pollutant sources, and

inspections: grit, screenings and other

solids handling, storage or disposal

areas; sludge drying beds; dried sludge

piles; compost piles; septage and/or

hauled waste receiving stations. An

additional BMP that permittees must

consider is routing storm water into the

treatment works, or covering exposed

materials from these additional areas or

activities.

I. Sector Y—Rubber, Miscellaneous

Plastic Products and Miscellaneous

Manufacturing Industries

EPA has re-evaluated the provisions

of the 1995 MSGP for industrial

facilities in Sector Y. The 1995 MSGP

included several special BMP

requirements for rubber manufacturers

to control zinc in storm water

discharges. However, no special BMPs

beyond the MSGP’s basic SWPPP

requirements were included in the 1995

MSGP for manufacturers of

miscellaneous plastic products or

miscellaneous manufacturing

industries.

EPA has several ongoing programs

directed toward identifying additional

pollution prevention opportunities for

different industrial sectors. For

example, EPA’s Office of Compliance

has published ‘‘sector notebooks’’ for a

number of industries, including the

rubber and miscellaneous plastics

industry (EPA 310-R–95–016). The

sector notebooks are intended to

facilitate a multi-media analysis of

environmental issues associated with

different industries and include a

review of pollution prevention

opportunities for the industries. As

discussed below, EPA’s sector notebook

for the rubber and plastic products

industry identifies a number of

additional BMPs (beyond those in the

1995 MSGP) which could further reduce

pollutants in storm water discharges

from these facilities, and which have

been included in the reissued MSGP.

1. Rubber Manufacturing Facilities

Today’s MSGP requires that rubber

manufacturing facility permittees

consider the following additional BMPs

(which were selected from those in the

sector notebook) for the rubber product

compounding and mixing area:

(1) consider the use of chemicals

which are purchased in pre-weighed,

sealed polyethylene bags. The sector

notebook points out that some facilities

place such bags directly into the

banbury mixer, thereby eliminating a

formerly dusty operation which could

result in pollutants in storm water

discharges.

(2) consider the use of containers

which can be sealed for materials which

are in use; also consider ensuring an

airspace between the container and the

cover to minimize ‘‘puffing’’ losses

when the container is opened.

(3) consider the use of automatic

dispensing and weighing equipment.

The sector notebook observes that such

equipment minimizes the chances for

chemical losses due to spills.

2. Plastic Products Manufacturing

Facilities

For plastic products manufacturing

facilities, today’s final MSGP requires

that permittees consider and include (as

appropriate) specific measures in the

SWPPP to minimize loss of plastic resin

pellets to the environment. These

measures include (at a minimum) spill

minimization, prompt and thorough

cleanup of spills, employee education,

thorough sweeping, pellet capture and

disposal precautions. Additional

specific guidance on minimizing loss

can be found in the EPA publication

entitled ‘‘Plastic Pellets in the Aquatic

Environment: Sources and

Recommendations’’ (EPA 842–B–92–

010, December, 1992) and at the website

of the Society of the Plastics Industry

(www.socplas.org).

3. Industry-Sponsored Efforts

Both the rubber manufacturing and

plastic products industries are also

active in sponsoring studies designed to

reduce the environmental impacts

associated with the production, use and

ultimate disposal of their products.

However, in reviewing recent work in

this regard, EPA has not identified any

additional BMPs for storm water

discharges which would be appropriate

for the reissued MSGP. Therefore, only

the additional BMPs noted above are

included in the reissued MSGP for these

industries.

64778 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

IX. Summary of Responses to

Comments on the Proposed MSGP

EPA received comments from 45

individuals in response to the proposed

permit. A summary of the Agency’s

responses to those comments appears

below. Responses to each comment is

available from the Water Docket, whose

address and hours of operation are

listed in the introduction to this notice.

Section 1.2 Eligibility

Comment a: One commenter

requested clarification on the

responsibilities military bases, which

resemble small municipalities, have

with regard to non-industrial areas of

the base. The commenter expressed

concern that examples of co-located

industrial activities in Section VI.B.3 of

the fact sheet and Part 1.2.1.1 of the

proposed permit could be interpreted to

require coverage for all vehicle

maintenance activities at a base, even

those unrelated to an industrial activity.

The commenter further noted that bases

in urbanized areas would require basewide storm water management programs

anyway as Small Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer Systems under Phase II of

the Storm Water Program.

Response a: EPA agrees that

municipalities and military or other

governmental installations are only

responsible for obtaining permits for

storm water associated with industrial

activity for those portions of their

municipality or installations where they

have a storm water discharge that is

covered under the definition of ‘‘storm

water associated with industrial

activity.’’ Under this interpretation,

even though a military base may choose

to submit a single NOI for all industrial

activities on the base, the SWPPP would

only need to identify facilities/areas

associated or not associated with

industrial activities and that have a

SWPPP covering the industrial activity

areas. The SWPPP required under the

MSGP would not need to address storm

water controls for the non-industrial

areas of the base. A note has been added

to Part 4.1 (Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plans) of the permit to

clarify the scope of the SWPPP.

Comment b: The proposed limitations

on transfer of storm water discharges

from a previous permit to the MSGP

could result in undue restrictions. The

commenter felt that there could be

reasons, e.g., for consistent management

of storm water across a site, etc. that

either the permittee or the permitting

authority would want to address all

storm water at a facility under a general

permit.

Response b: EPA has reconsidered the

Part 1.2.3.3.2 restrictions and Part

1.2.3.3.2.1 of the proposed permit has

been eliminated. Part 1.2.3.3.2.1 would

only have allowed permittees to seek

MSGP coverage for storm water

discharges previously covered by

another permit if that previous permit

contained only storm water and eligible

non-storm water (i.e., an individual

permit for wastewater, etc. would no

longer be required if coverage under the

MSGP was allowed). EPA’s review did

identify some unintended consequences

and unresolved issues that could result

from this restriction.

A facility (including new facilities)

that never had storm water discharges

covered by an individual permit, or

which was located where access to a

municipal wastewater treatment plant

for wastewater discharges was available,

would have an opportunity for burden

reduction that would not be available to

a facility with even cleaner storm water

that happened to have storm water

discharges covered in a previous permit

and could not eliminate their

wastewater discharges. There could be

cases were a smaller and ‘‘cleaner’’

facility would not be able to take

advantage of the savings (e.g.,

individual permit application sampling

is not required) the MSGP offered their

competitors simply because they had a

minor wastewater discharge that could

not be eliminated.

While the main purpose of the

proposed Part 1.2.3.3.2.1 restriction was

to discourage dual permits at a facility,

there are already many facilities that

have permit coverage split between an

individual permit and the MSGP and

dual permit coverage would still be

available in many cases anyway.

Currently, some of these ‘‘dual permit’’

facilities have only wastewater under an

individual permit and all their storm

water discharges under the MSGP,

while at others, the individual

wastewater permit includes some of the

storm water discharges, with the

remaining storm water discharges

covered by the MSGP. This ability to

have split coverage in at least some

situations is necessary to address

situations where at least interim

coverage under a general permit for a

new storm water discharge is necessary

or desirable from either the permittee’s

or the permitting authority’s standpoint.

EPA has determined that the

proposed restrictions in Part 1.2.3.3.2

relating to discharges for which a water

quality-based limit had been developed

and discharges at a facility for which a

permit had been (or was in the process

of being) either denied or revoked by the

permitting authority were necessary to

address the anti-backsliding

requirements of the Clean Water Act or

to ensure that discharges from a facility

requiring the additional scrutiny of an

individual permit application were not

inadvertently allowed under the general

permit. In any event, only those storm

water discharges under the previous

permit that met all other eligibility

conditions of the MSGP could even be

considered for transfer.

EPA periodically promulgates new

effluent limitation guidelines, some of

which, such as the those for landfills

published February 2, 2000, contain

storm water effluent limitation

guidelines. Under Part 1.2.2.1.3 of the

MSGP, a storm water discharge subject

to a promulgated effluent limitation

guideline is only eligible for coverage if

that guideline is listed in Table 1–2. A

new guideline promulgated during the

term of the permit would thus alter the

eligibility for the permit not only for

new dischargers, but also for discharges

already covered by the permit. In order

to avoid the situation where a discharge

would suddenly become ineligible upon

promulgation of a new guideline, Part

1.2.2.1.3 has been modified to allow

interim coverage under the permit

where a storm water effluent guideline

has been promulgated after the effective

date of the permit, but the permit has

not yet been modified to include the

new guideline. This will allow

continued coverage until the new storm

water guideline could be added to the

permit. Where the new guideline

includes new source performance

standards, ‘‘new sources’’ would need to

comply with Part 1.2.4 prior to seeking

permit coverage.

Section 1.4 Terminating Coverage

Comment: (Comment also addresses

Section 11.1 Transfer of Permit

Coverage) Several commenters viewed

the submittal of an NOT by the old

operator and the submittal of an NOI by

the new operator in order to transfer

permit coverage after a change in

ownership as a new and overly

burdensome requirement (Parts 1.4 and

11.1). An alternative suggested was a

simple notice to the permit file of the

ownership change.

Response: EPA has determined that

the most effective method for

accommodating and tracking a change

in the owner/operator at a facility

covered by the general permit is to have

the old operator submit a Notice of

Termination certifying that they are no

longer the operator of the facility, and

for the new operator to submit a Notice

of Intent certifying their desire and

eligibility to be covered by the general

permit. In fact, this is not a new

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64779

requirement since the same process was

required under the 1995 MSGP (see Part

II.A.4 and Part XI.A at 60 FR 51113 and

51122, respectively). The only ‘‘new’’

aspect of the process is the 30 day

timeframe for submittal of the NOT by

the old operator and a clarification that

simple name changes in a particular

company (e.g., Jones Industrial

Manufacturing, Co. changing to JIMCO)

can be made with a simple update to the

company’s NOI and a NOT would not

be required. Submittal of the NOT by

the old operator documents that the old

operator believes he no longer needs

coverage under the MSGP for any storm

water discharges. In addition, EPA is

more able to maintain a cleaner database

of facilities actually covered by the

permit both currently and in the past.

The NOI/NOT process for transfers

under the general permit is thus

essentially a streamlined parallel

process to what would otherwise be

required under 40 CFR 122.61.

The permit transfer procedures at 40

CFR 122.61 are designed to avoid the

time delays and resource burdens

associated with issuance of a new

permit for a facility just because there is

a new owner/operator. Under this

process, transfer of the permit to the

new owner/operator cannot be made

without an actual permit modification (a

lengthy process especially for general

permits), unless the old operator

submits a thirty day advance notice and

a written agreement between the parties

containing a specific date for transfer of

permit responsibility, coverage, and

liability between them.

The nature of a general permit is such

that there is no actual permit issued to

any individual facility, but rather that

multiple dischargers are in effect

‘‘registering’’ their intent to use the

discharge authority offered by the

general permit to anyone who is

eligible. This ‘‘registration’’ is

accomplished by an operator’s submittal

of the Notice of Intent to be covered by

the general permit as little as two days

before they need permit coverage. In

fact, regulations at 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)

specifically require submittal of an NOI

in order for an operator to be authorized

under a general permit for discharges of

storm water associated with industrial

activity. EPA thus views the

requirements for the new operator to file

an NOI as little as two days prior to the

transfer and for the old operator to file

an NOT within thirty days after the

transfer to be less burdensome than the

thirty day advance notice and written

agreements that would otherwise be

required under the permit transfer

requirements of 40 CFR 122.61.

Section 1.5 Conditional Exclusion for

No Exposure

Comment: EPA should insert the No

Exposure Certification form and

guidance within the permit since many

facility operators are unaware of its

existence.

Response: EPA has generated a

document, ‘‘Guidance Manual for

Conditional Exclusion from Storm

Water Permitting Based on ‘‘No

Exposure’’ of Industrial Activities to

Storm Water,’’ and a separate no

exposure announcement to help

operators understand and apply for the

conditional permitting exclusion. The

guidance is available in hard copy from

EPA’s Water Resource Center. In

addition, EPA also sent a mass mailing

alerting all EPA permittees as well as

stakeholder groups to the MSGP–2000

and the no exposure exclusion. To

provide the No Exposure Certification in

as many possible places, EPA is

publishing the form and instructions as

an addendum to the MSGP–2000.

Section 2.1 Notice of Intent (NOI)

Deadlines

Comment: Commenters requested an

extension of the 90 day timeframe for

submission of their NOI to 270 days.

Commenters said they needed the

additional time to complete their Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP), application for an alternate

permit, or their endangered species

consultation or adverse impact

investigation. A commenter also

requested clarification of coverage

during the 90 days between this

publication and their submission of

their NOI.

Response: The fact sheet clarifies that

SWPPPs are to be prepared at the time

the NOI is submitted. Since most

permittees are already covered under

the current MSGP and have a

requirement to update their SWPPP as

the need arises, there is no basis for an

automatic extension to 270 days.

However, facilities may seek an

extension up to 270 days to develop

their SWPPP, or to obtain an alternate

permit, on a case-by-case basis.

Similarly, facilities can request an

extension up to 270 days if they need to

conduct an endangered species

consultation or adverse impact

investigation. Permittees covered under

the current MSGP will continue to be

covered during the next 90 days as long

as they meet the conditions set forth in

the 1995 MSGP.

Section 2.2 Contents of Notice of

Intent (NOI)

Comment a: Clarify how to complete

the NOI form in situations where an

MS4 has industrial activities and is

conveying the pollutants to its own

storm drainage system.

Response a: The intent of Section

2.2.2.5 was to identify the municipal

separate storm sewer system under the

assumption that it would be under

different ownership. If there is not a

separate owner, this requirement is

unnecessary. This section has been

revised to clarify ‘‘the name of the

municipal operator if the discharge is

through a municipal separate storm

sewer system under separate

ownership.’’

Comment b: A commenter questioned

whether EPA was requiring or

encouraging permittees to consult FWS

and NMFS in making its endangered

species finding.

Response b: The facility is responsible

for obtaining the threatened or

endangered species list to make sure

that listed specie or critical habitat is

not located in or around the vicinity of

your facility. That list may be obtained

by phoning or mailing the FWS or

NMFS, visiting EPA’s website, or by

some other means. Thus, the permittee

is not required to contact the two

agencies if he can meet his obligation in

another manner.

Comment c: Do not include latitude/

longitude information on the NOI.

Response c: EPA requires all regulated

facilities to submit latitude and

longitude information. The information

is critical in overseeing compliance with

endangered species assessments and

coordinating compliance assistance and

enforcement activities across media

programs.

Section 2.3 Use of NOI Form

Comment a: Do not add check boxes

related to NHPA and ESA compliance.

Response a: EPA believes the

additional information improves the

Agency’s ability to oversee

implementation of the permit and

compliance with ESA and NHPA

requirements. Because the permittee is

already responsible for conducting the

analysis, there is minimal additional

burden associated with indicating on

the NOI form how the analysis was

conducted. Therefore, EPA intends to

retain this requirement. The NOI form

requires review by the Office of

Management and Budget. Until the new

form is approved, permittees should use

the current form. EPA’s ability to issue

today’s permit is contingent upon its

compliance with ESA and NHPA; thus,

provisions related to those statutes is

part and parcel of today’s permitting

action.

Comment b: Commenters supported

EPA’s proposal to allow facilities to

64780 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

submit NOIs, notices of termination,

and discharge monitoring reports

electronically. However, they cautioned

that EPA continue to allow hard copy

filing since not all permittees have

internet access.

Response b: The final permit retains

the requirement of paper filing for NOIs,

NOTs, and DMRs. While EPA believes

that electronic filing will be

incorporated as an option in the future,

it is currently not available.

Section 3.3 Compliance with Water

Quality Standards

NPDES regulations at 40 CFR

122.44(d)(1)(i) require that the MSGP

ensure compliance with State water

quality standards for all discharges

which ‘‘will cause, have the reasonable

potential to cause, or contribute’’ to an

exceedance of a State standard. With the

wide variety of facilities to be permitted

under the MSGP, EPA believes that

reasonable potential to cause or

contribute to exceedances of water

quality standards is likely to exist at

least for some facilities. Therefore the

MSGP must include appropriate

provisions to ensure compliance with

State standards. For general permits,

EPA’s guidance document entitled

‘‘General Permit Program Guidance’’

(February, 1988) suggests an overall

narrative statement requiring

compliance with State standards to

address the fact that the permit will

cover a wide variety of facilities subject

to different standards depending on

their location. Part 3.3 of the proposed

MSGP included a narrative statement in

accordance with this guidance to ensure

compliance with 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(i).

Part 1.2.3.5 of the proposed MSGP also

included an exclusion from permit

coverage for facilities which EPA has

determined may cause or contribute to

violations of State standards.

Commenters raised a number of

concerns regarding the provisions of the

proposed MSGP related to compliance

with State standards. However, after

review of the comments, EPA believes

that the provisions of the proposed

MSGP were appropriate and these

provisions have been retained in the

final MSGP. Following below are EPA

responses to the specific issues raised

by the commenters:

Lack of Coverage for Facilities With

Reasonable Potential

Comment a: A commenter was

puzzled by the exclusion from coverage

in Part 1.2.3.5 of the proposed MSGP

and requested additional explanation.

Response a: EPA believes that

facilities which are shown to cause, or

have the reasonable potential to cause or

contribute to exceedances of State

standards may be more appropriately

permitted under individual permits or a

separate general permit with alternate

permit requirements designed to ensure

compliance with State standards. This is

the basis for the exclusion. Part 1.2.3.5

also provides, however, that MSGP

coverage may be available if the control

measures in the storm water pollution

prevention plan (SWPPP) are sufficient

to ensure compliance with State

standards.

Comment b: Part 1.2.3.5 of the

proposed MSGP could prove

burdensome and could lead to permit

backlogs depending on the extent of its

use.

Response b: Given the large number of

facilities covered by the MSGP, it is not

practical for EPA to individually review

the status of all facilities covered by the

MSGP prior to submittal of the NOI.

EPA has developed eligibility criteria

for coverage under the MSGP–2000

which should, if applied appropriately

by the facility operator, screen out

facilities which have ‘‘reasonable

potential’’ to exceed a state standard. In

addition, where EPA determines there is

a ‘‘reasonable potential,’’ the Director

will require the facility to submit an

individual permit or take other

appropriate action.

Comment c: MSGP coverage should

not be allowed until the absence of

reasonable potential had been

demonstrated by the discharger.

Response c: As noted above, EPA does

not believe this is practical for all

facilities given the large number of

dischargers covered by the permit.

Moreover, as discussed in EPA’s

‘‘Interim Permitting Policy for Water

Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in

Storm Water Permits’’ (61 FR 43761,

November 26, 1996), there will likely be

circumstances where inadequate

information is available to perform the

reasonable potential analysis.

Are Discharges with Reasonable

Potential a Permit Violation?

Comment d: Several commenters

objected to Part 3.3 of the proposed

MSGP which indicated that discharges

which have occurred would be

violations of the MSGP if they are later

shown to have the reasonable potential

to cause or contribute to exceedances of

State standards.

Response d: EPA believes that such

discharges are appropriately

characterized by the MSGP as

violations. The narrative statement in

the MSGP requiring compliance with

water quality standards in effect

incorporates into the permit all numeric

effluent limitations which are necessary

to ensure compliance with State

standards. When a discharge is shown

to have reasonable potential, this

implies that discharges are occurring

which would exceed the permit limits

needed to ensure compliance with State

standards. Since the narrative statement

incorporates all limits needed to ensure

compliance with State standards, the

discharges are appropriately

characterized as violations of the

permit.

Process for Terminating Coverage Under

the MSGP

Comment e: Several commenters

expressed concern regarding the process

for terminating coverage under the

MSGP and ensuring due process for

dischargers to contest such actions by

EPA.

Response e: EPA believes that the

MSGP does ensure due process for

dischargers. Part 9.12 of the MSGP

provides that EPA may require an

individual permit application from a

discharger, or require the discharger to

seek coverage under an alternate general

permit. If an individual permit

application were required, a draft

permit would be prepared and a full

opportunity would be provided to the

discharger in accordance with 40 CFR

Part 124 to comment on the draft permit

and contest any final determination.

Further, any alternate general permit

would provide (in accordance with 40

CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iii)) that the discharger

could seek coverage under an individual

permit rather than the alternate general

permit. Such a request would also be

processed in accordance with the

procedures at 40 CFR Part 124.

Comment f: A number of commenters

also asked whether a notice of violation

of Part 3.3 of the MSGP for violations of

State water quality standards would be

in writing.

Response f: Dischargers would be

notified in writing by EPA of any

violation of Part 3.3.

Permit as a Shield Concerns

Comment g: Section 402(k) of the

Clean Water Act shields permittees from

the requirements of Part 3.3 of the

MSGP to comply with water quality

standards.

Response g: EPA disagrees with the

commenters on this matter. Section

402(k) provides that compliance with an

NPDES permit is considered to be

compliance, for purposes of section 309

and 505 enforcement, with sections 301,

302, 306, 307 and 403 of the Clean

Water Act. However, the violations

which are envisioned by Part 3.3 of the

MSGP would be violations of an NPDES

permit itself, i.e., the water qualitybased effluent limitations which are

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64781

incorporated into the MSGP by virtue of

the narrative statement. Section 402(k)

does not provide a shield for such

violations.

Concerns about Applying State Water

Quality Standards to Storm Water

Comment h: Water quality standards

cannot apply to storm water discharges

since special wet weather standards

have not been developed to address

episodic events.

Response h: EPA disagrees that State

water quality standards cannot apply in

the absence of special wet weather

standards. Section 402(p)(3)(A) of the

Clean Water Act specifically requires

that industrial storm water dischargers

comply with State water quality

standards. EPA has recognized,

however, the difficulties in developing

appropriate water quality-based effluent

limitations for storm water discharges.

In response to concerns such as those

raised by the commenter, EPA has

developed an ‘‘Interim Permitting Policy

for Water Quality-Based Effluent

Limitations in Storm Water Permits’ (61

FR 43761, November 26, 1996). Where

numeric water quality-based effluent

limitations are infeasible (due for

example to inadequate information on

which to base the limitations), best

management practices (BMPs) such as

those in the SWPPP would serve as the

water quality-based effluent limitations.

Comment i: Clarify whether mixing

zones would apply to the storm water

discharges.

Response i: Mixing zones would

apply to the extent that State water

quality standards provide for their use.

Required Actions if Violations of

Standards Occur

Comment j: A commenter was unclear

concerning the modifications of the

SWPPP that would be required by Part

3.3 of the MSGP if violations of State

water quality standards occur.

Response j: The SWPPP must be

modified to include additional BMPs to

the extent necessary to prevent future

violations.

Comment k: Clarify who would

determine the additional control

measures that would be required by Part

3.3 of the MSGP.

Response k: The discharger would at

least initially be responsible for

determining the additional control

measures. However, Part 4.10 of the

MSGP also provides that EPA may

require modifications of the SWPPP if it

proves to be inadequate.

Can a Reasonable Potential Analysis

Occur at Any Time During the Permit

Term?

Comment l: Part 3.3 of the MSGP

should not require a reasonable

potential analysis at any time during the

term of the permit.

Response l: The information to

support a reasonable potential

determination would be based on

additional information that becomes

available concerning a particular

discharge (from monitoring results, for

example). As such, the permit

appropriately provides that a reasonable

potential analysis (possibly leading to

an individual permit or separate general

permit) may be required at such a time.

Comment m: Discharges of a pollutant

which increase during the term of the

permit should not be considered a

permit violation.

Response m: EPA disagrees with the

commenter on this issue. The narrative

statement in Part 3.3 of the MSGP

requires that dischargers comply with

all State water quality standards

throughout the term of the permit.

Dischargers must ensure that, if there

are increases in the discharges of a

particular pollutant, the increases are

not sufficient to cause or contribute to

exceedances of water quality standards.

Questions Regarding the Benchmark

Concentrations

Comment n: Part 3.3 of the proposed

MSGP would undermine EPA’s use of

the benchmark values in the MSGP.

Response n: EPA disagrees with the

commenters in this regard. The

benchmark values are concentrations

which are used to evaluate whether a

generally effective SWPPP is being

implemented. The SWPPP is required to

ensure compliance with the technologybased discharge requirements of the

Clean Water Act. Exceedance of a

benchmark value is not a permit

violation. However, if a permittee

complies with the benchmarks, the

permittee is eligible for the monitoring

waiver in year 4 of the term of the

permit and this provides an incentive to

implement an effective SWPPP. Part 3.3

of the MSGP is required to ensure

compliance with the water qualitybased requirements of the Clean Water

Act, which are in addition to the

technology-based requirements. Part 3.3

of the MSGP does not undermine the

benchmarks. Part 3.3 is simply a

separate requirement of the Clean Water

Act which must be included in the

permit in addition to the technologybased requirements.

General Comment on Water Quality

Standards Requirements

Comment o: One commenter lodged a

general objection to Part 3.3 of the

proposed MSGP, but did not elaborate

on specific concerns.

Response o: As discussed above, EPA

believes that Part 3.3 is appropriate and

necessary to ensure compliance with

State water quality standards. As such,

Part 3.3 was retained in the final MSGP.

Section 4.1 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

Comment a: EPA should not measure

progress solely on the number of BMPs

applied.

Response a: As stated, EPA’s

intention in requiring the

comprehensive site compliance

evaluation is to determine the

effectiveness of BMPs in use at the site,

and to assess compliance with the terms

and conditions of the permit. Additional

new BMPs are not prescribed as part of

this requirement; the options to include

BMPs to replace those which are not

working appropriately, or to augment

existing BMPs to ensure better

performance, rests solely with the

facility operator, based on the findings

of the compliance evaluation.

Comment b: Clarify the frequency of

training required.

Response b: Some industrial sectors

covered by this permit are required to

provide training at least once per year.

In other sectors, it is left to the

discretion of the operator. EPA’s fact

sheet recommends that facilities

conduct employee training annually at a

minimum, and acknowledges that, for

some facilities, a more frequent training

schedule may be appropriate to ensure

that personnel at all levels of

responsibility are informed of the

components and goals of the site’s

SWPPP.

Comment c: Clarify the term ‘‘locally

available.’’

Response c: EPA intends the term

‘‘locally available’’ to mean a facility

office which need not actually be

located on-site, but co-located with

other facility operations. It is not

necessary for a permittee to maintain a

local presence near an unstaffed site for

the purposes of maintaining availability

of the SWPPP.

Comment d: Fourteen days is an

unrealistic timeframe for modifying a

SWPPP in response to a discharge of a

reportable quantity of oil.

Response d: EPA does not consider

the requirement to revise the SWPPP

within 14 days after a discharge of a

reportable quantity of oil to be

unrealistic. Changes to accommodate a

64782 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

description of the release, date and

circumstances of the release, as well as

a description of the actions taken to

address the problem and any necessary

changes to the BMPs to prevent future

releases are inherently necessary to

prevent water quality degradation.

Comment e: It is standard practice to

keep a copy of their SWPPPs with their

permit and, therefore, there is no

objection to this requirement.

Response e: EPA acknowledges that

many industrial facilities already keep a

copy of the storm water permit with

their SWPPP, and the Agency is

formalizing that practice as a

requirement of the permit for all

facilities.

Section 4.2 Contents of Plan

Comment a: A commenter believed

EPA was requiring velocity dissipation

devices to minimize erosion due to flow

velocity.

Response a: EPA’s intention is to

require facilities to evaluate the need for

velocity dissipation devices where it is

necessary to minimize erosion due to

flow velocity. Facilities should use their

best judgment when considering if

velocity dissipation devices are needed.

The language in the permit has been

clarified.

Comment b: Specify a set of minimum

management practices for coverage

under the permit.

Response b: Due to the variety of

industries covered by the Multi-Sector

General Permit, there is no ‘‘minimum’’

list of best management practices that

would suitably address the multiple

situations found at different industrial

sites. EPA considers it sufficient to

outline minimum criteria that each

facility operator must consider to

minimize discharges from their

property, and allow facility operators to

identify and implement BMPs that are

appropriate for their site.

Comment c: Do not require the

SWPPP to identify oil spills or leaks

below reportable quantities. Only those

sites that have not been cleaned up to

appropriate levels should be included in

the site description and shown on the

site map.

Comment d: EPA has not changed the

basic intent of this permit requirement:

a facility must keep a record of

significant spills or leaks of both

hazardous substances or oil and, for

releases in excess of reportable

quantities under 40 CFR Parts 117 or

302, revise its pollution prevention plan

as necessary to prevent the reoccurrence

of such releases. A spill or leak may not

meet the threshold of a ‘‘reportable

quantity’’ but may still be sufficiently

significant to cause water quality

impairment, and therefore should be

acknowledged and mitigated by the

permittee. EPA does not intend that

‘‘reportable quantity’’ defines the

minimum amount of a substance which

should be appropriately managed. In

regards to including previous spill and/

or leak areas in the site map and

associated descriptions, the Agency

views the inclusion of all areas where

spills have occurred over the last three

years from the date of NOI submittal as

important information which may be

useful in assessing future risks.

Comment d: The provision

prohibiting discharge of ‘‘solid

materials’’ is too broad and should be

eliminated.

Response d: EPA intends the

reference to ‘‘solid materials, including

floating debris’’ and ‘‘Off-site tracking of

raw, final, or waste materials or

sediment, and the generation of dust’’ as

having the generally accepted plain

language meanings, and that facility

operators should use their best

professional judgment in applying this

requirement to their discharge. The

reference is not necessarily meant to

apply in particular to suspended soil.

EPA has purposefully allowed for

reasonable flexibility in allowing each

facility to determine whether ‘‘solid

materials,’’ ‘‘floating debris’’ and/or

‘‘dust’’ are a component of their storm

water discharge. The Agency

acknowledges that many areas have

state or local ordinances prohibiting the

off-site tracking and generation of dust;

therefore, this requirement does not

pose a hardship on facility operators.

While not prohibiting the discharge of

waters containing soils, the permit still

requires that discharges must comply

with state/local water quality standards.

Comment e: The requirement for

‘‘routine inspections’’ and ‘‘records of

inspections’’ are too broad.

Response e: EPA acknowledges that

most industrial facilities conduct

regular inspections of plant conditions.

As discussed in Part 4.2.7.1.5 of the

permit, facility operators must explicitly

outline in the SWPPP the frequency of

regular inspections at their facility

which will incorporate inspections of

industrial activities or materials that are

exposed to storm water. Records of

these specific storm water inspections,

along with records of any followup

actions taken as a result of these

inspections, must be kept with the

SWPPP. This facility-specific schedule

of periodic inspections is what EPA is

referring to as ‘‘routine facility

inspections.’’

Comment f: An evaluation of

groundwater impacts or concerns is

beyond the scope of a stormwater

pollution prevention plan.

Response f: In some cases,

groundwater beneath a facility may be

hydrologically connected to surface

waters. EPA’s intent for including an

evaluation of impacts to groundwater

when considering appropriate BMPs is

to ensure that facility operators are fully

cognizant of the hydrology of their area,

and have evaluated any appropriate

BMPs in the event that such a situation

exists for their property. If there are no

possible impacts to groundwater, this

fact should be acknowledged in the

SWPPP.

Section 4.4 Non-Storm Water

Discharges

Comment a: Include swimming pool

discharges as an allowable storm water

discharge.

Response a: EPA does not include

swimming pool discharge as an

allowable non-storm water discharge in

the Multi-Sector General Permit, as this

is a general permit to cover storm water

discharges from industrial activity. The

Agency is unclear as to how many

industrial facilities have swimming

pools that would necessitate this

specific exemption. The inclusion of

nonchlorinated swimming pool

discharges as an allowable non-storm

water discharge will be better suited to

the upcoming EPA Small Multiple

Separate Storm Sewer General Permit,

which will be available by December

2002.

Comment b: The permit should allow

for case-by-case determinations for

inclusion of de minimus non

stormwater sources.

Response b: By its very nature, a

general permit is meant to cover many

similar discharges from a variety of

similar sources. Case-by-case

determinations for de minimus nonstormwater discharges would be

extremely time-intensive, and it is not

possible to provide for such individual

determinations in the context of a

general permit. Specific examples of de

minimus discharges were not provided

by the commenter; therefore, the Agency

is not inclined to include such a

provision at this time.

Comment c: Delete ‘‘drinking fountain

water:’’ from Section 1.2.2.2.3 and cite

only ‘‘potable water including water

line flushings.’’

Response c: EPA agrees with the

issues presented by the commenter, and

that the term ‘‘drinking fountain water,’’

in itself, is imprecise. Both the draft

MSGP fact sheet and permit specifically

authorize potable water as an allowable

non-storm water discharge. The

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64783

‘‘drinking fountain water’’ language has

been deleted.

Section 4.7 Copy of Permit

Requirements

Comment: Recommend electronic

website access in lieu of paper copy of

permit.

Response: The new requirement that

a hard copy of the Multi-Sector General

Permit be kept with a facility’s Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan is

intended to ensure that the permit

requirements are easily and readily

available to all facility staff who are or

may be responsible for implementing

the provisions of the permit. Internet

access may not be available to staff in

all situations; therefore, for ease of

reference, EPA is requiring that at least

one copy of the permit be retained along

with the SWPPP. The sections referring

to EPA’s acceptance of the electronic

medium is contingent, in both cases

cited by the commenter, upon the future

viability of electronic submittal of NOIs

and DMRs to the Agency.

Section 4.9 Timeline

Comment a: The fact sheet and permit

need to provide consistent timeframes

for SWPPP revisions.

Response a: The fact sheet and permit

language were consistent on revising the

SWPPP within 14 days of the site

evaluation, but were somewhat

confusing on how long the permittee

had to implement the revisions. To

clarify this time period, EPA has revised

Part 4.9.3 of the permit to state: ‘‘If

existing BMPs need to be modified or if

additional BMPs are necessary,

implementation must be completed

before the next anticipated storm event,

or not more than 12 weeks after

completion of the comprehensive site

evaluation.’’

Comment b: Thirty days to correct

deficiencies in the SWPPP following

notification by the Director is

insufficient.

Response b: EPA intends for

corrections to the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan to be accomplished in

a timely manner, particularly when

deficiencies are identified formally by

the Director. The Agency feels that

thirty days, as outlined in the existing

permit language, is a reasonable amount

of time for such changes to be made; if

revisions are significant, the permittee

may request, and the Director can

provide, additional time for revisions to

be accomplished.

Comment c: Fourteen days to modify

a SWPPP is insufficient.

Response c: The Agency feels that

revising the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan appropriately to

address deficiencies within 14 days is a

reasonable timeframe in which to

address changes administratively;

additional time is provided to actually

put those revisions into place.

Comment d: The SWPPP must be

completed and in place prior to

issuance of the permit.

Response d: Part 4.1 of the permit

states that a SWPPP must be prepared

for the facility before submitting a

Notice of Intent for permit coverage.

EPA’s issuance of the MSGP–2000 does

not automatically confer coverage to

permittees; therefore, EPA feels the

requirement that a site-specific SWPPP

be in place for the facility operations

prior to seeking coverage by way of the

submittal of a NOI is sufficient to

prevent environmental degradation.

Section 4.12 Additional Requirement:

EPCRA Section 313 Reporting

Comment: Many commenters

supported removal of EPCRA Section

313 reporting requirements from the

permit. Two commenters objected to

identifying areas with pollutants that

must be reported under EPCRA Section

313 and to develop appropriate storm

water controls for these areas.

Response: EPA acknowledges the

general support for revisions to this

section. The intent of these

modifications is to eliminate the

redundant requirements of the existing

MSGP for permittees subject to

reporting requirements under Section

313 of EPCRA, which includes the 20+

categories of Toxic Release Inventory

chemicals. The Agency believes that the

MSGP–2000 places no additional

burden on facility operators with TRI

chemicals. Identification of EPCRA 313

chemicals in the SWPPP acknowledges

that these chemicals are pollutants of

concern. Facilities with any of these

pollutants need to develop appropriate

storm water controls to contain them.

As noted in the fact sheet, EPA believes

these concerns have been addressed

through existing state and federal

requirements which can be referenced

in the SWPPP.

Section 4.13 Public Availability for

Review

Comment a: The public should be

able to obtain access to and comment

upon a SWPPP and ‘‘no exposure’’

claim before they are finalized.

Response a: EPA has, in response to

this comment, included a provision in

the final permit requiring facility

operators to make a hard copy of their

SWPPP available to the public when

requested in writing. EPA believes this

requirement is an acceptable

compromise between the facility

operator’s concerns about having

members of the public at their site and

the need of the public to understand

potential impacts on their environment.

EPA does not receive SWPPPs routinely,

and, therefore, cannot make them

available at its offices or provide them

to local government offices. As with the

previous MSGP, members of the public

have the option of contacting the NOI

Center or the Regional EPA Storm Water

Coordinators directly to inquire about a

facility’s permit status.

EPA does not intend to require public

comment on SWPPPs, nor require

public hearings, because SWPPPs are

intended to be modified as necessary to

address changes at the facility or when

periodic inspections indicate that a

portion of the SWPPP is proving to be

ineffective. Requirements for public

comment and public hearings would

delay needed modifications to, not to

mention development of, the SWPPP, be

burdensome and serve as disincentives

to plan updates.

At any time the Agency can conclude

that a facility is no longer eligible for

coverage under a general permit and

require the facility to apply for a general

permit. In that event, there would be

significant opportunity for public input

in the decision-making process.

Comment b: The following should be

available in paper copy and on the web:

NOI, SWPPP, and ‘‘no exposure’’

certification.

Response b: EPA has found that

having a central location for processing

NOIs is an efficient and effective way of

managing the tremendous amount of

data which the Storm Water program

generates. Very shortly, members of the

public will be able to access information

from the NOI database online. The NOI

database contains facility information,

including the type of industrial activity

taking place, facility contact

information, and receiving water body

information. Also available online will

be information on facilities that have

submitted ‘‘no exposure certifications.’’

Regarding SWPPPs, EPA does not

receive them routinely and, therefore,

cannot make them available on-line.

EPA has, in response to this comment,

included a provision in the final permit

requiring facility operators to make a

hard copy of their SWPPP available to

the public when requested in writing.

EPA believes this requirement is an

acceptable compromise between the

facility operator’s concerns about having

members of the public at their site and

the need of the public to understand

potential impacts on their environment.

64784 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Section 5.1 Types of Monitoring

Requirements and Limitations

Comment a: A commenter requested

language clarification for the first

paragraph under Part 5.1, Quarterly

Visual Monitoring.

Response a: Quarterly visual

monitoring is required for all permittees

covered under the MSGP. The visual

inspection must cover all outfalls at the

facility from which there are storm

water discharges associated with

industrial activity.

Comment b: A commenter indicated

that Part 5.1.1.4 was clear regarding the

visual monitoring waiver for inactive

and unstaffed sites. However, it was

unclear if a similar waiver for

benchmark monitoring applies to

inactive and unstaffed sites.

Response b: EPA has clarified in Part

5 that a permittee may exercise a waiver

for benchmark monitoring at unstaffed

and inactive sites.

Section 5.3 General Monitoring

Waivers

Comment a: Commenters supported

the adverse sampling condition waiver,

as long as the permittee doubles

sampling during the next event or

eliminates the substitute sampling

requirement for areas with extended

frozen conditions.

Response a: EPA has decided to keep

this temporary waiver, since the main

purpose of this specific waiver is to

allow the permittees the opportunity to

take samples under no adverse nor

threatening weather conditions.

Comment b: Allow permittees to

waive benchmark monitoring in years 2

and 4 of the MSGP–2000 with the result

of the 1995–MSGP; waive difficult

logistical conditions or location access

similar to those for unstaffed/inactive

facilities; and impractical sample

collection at large facilities.

Response b: Under Section 402 of the

CWA, EPA is required to issue permits

which apply and ensure compliance

with any applicable requirements of

sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403.

Since these permits are issued with

fixed terms not exceeding five (5) years,

EPA needs to ensure that permittees

continue to comply with applicable

requirements. EPA believes that

benchmark monitoring is not overly

burdensome and provides useful

information to the permittee and the

Agency. Therefore, EPA will require

permittees covered under the reissued

MSGP to ensure continued compliance

with permit conditions and

requirements. In addition, EPA has

determined that the general monitoring

waivers provided in the previous permit

are adequate, and that additional

waivers are not needed. With regard to

problems facilities encounter when

monitoring their storm water discharges,

such as difficult logistical conditions,

access to discharge locations or

impractical sample collection at large

facilities, EPA recommends permittees

review the ‘‘NPDES Storm Water

Sampling Guidance Document’’ which

suggest solutions to these sampling

problems.

Section 6.E Sector E—Glass, Clay,

Cement, Concrete and Gypsum Products

Comment a: Separate the concrete

pipe manufacturing from the cement,

ready mixed and concrete block

manufacturing sector.

Response a: Based on the

characterization of the concrete pipe

manufacturing industry and the cement,

ready mixed and concrete block

manufacturing industry, EPA has

determined that the two industries are

similar and, thus, has retained the

industrial sectors as described in the

1995 permit.

Comment b: Section 6.E.3.1 of the

draft permit was not reflective of the

September 30, 1998 modification.

Response b: The commenter is

correct. The final permit has been

changed to reflect the September 30,

1998 modification which removed the

limitations of coverage for various

industries. Paragraph 6.E.3 has been

removed and the remaining paragraphs

have been renumbered accordingly.

Section 6.F Sector F—Primary Metals

Comment a: Do not propose any new

BMPs for the steel industry in the

MSGP–2000.

Response a: Similarly to the 1995

MSGP, the MSGP–2000 prefers the

implementation of structural and nonstructural BMPs for stormwater

management from Primary Metals

facilities. It is up to the individual

operators to decide which BMPs most

effectively meet their needs. This does

not preclude the use of additional or

new technologies should they be found

to be more effective in any given

application.

Comment b: The BMPs provided at

Parts 6.F.3.2 and 6.F.3.3 omit the most

obvious qualifier, which is that

inventories of exposed material and

housekeeping should be mandated by

the MSGP only where the exposed

materials have a potential to contact

storm water that is discharged from a

point source to a water of the United

States. In many cases, the types of

materials and activities discussed in the

above referenced parts occur in areas

where precipitation is collected and

contained, and is not discharged. Thus,

site inventories and BAT practices

discussed in these parts are not relevant

except in areas where they affect storm

water discharges authorized by the

MSGP. Parts 6.F.3.2 and 6.F.3.3 should

be clarified (similarly to Part 6.F.3.1)

with a statement that these activities are

required only in areas where such

activities could result in a discharge of

pollutants to waters of the United

States.

Response b: One of the underlying

premises of the MSGP is that if there is

a potential for contact between storm

water and environmental contaminants,

then the facility should apply for

coverage under the MSGP. If there is no

potential for contact, the facility may be

able to submit a ‘‘no exposure’’

certification form, and not be required

to obtain permit coverage. Where there

is a potential for contact between storm

water and industrial activities and/or

materials, then the operator needs to

obtain permit coverage and take

appropriate measures to mitigate the

discharge of pollutants.

Comment c: Part 6.F.3.4 includes a

requirement for inspections performed

under the 2000–MSGP to, among other

things, evaluate air pollution control

equipment. This activity does not

belong under the MSGP. It is a Clean Air

Act requirement and an activity

performed under each facility’s Clean

Air Act permit. Such inspections under

the MSGP are redundant, inappropriate

and extend EPA’s CWA authority into

the CAA. Inspections of air pollution

control equipment should not be a

component of any SWPPP or

compliance certification under the

CWA.

Response c: EPA understands why

inspection requirements which

routinely fall under the purview of one

environmental program (in this case the

Air Program) would appear

inappropriate under another

environmental program (in this case the

Water Program). However, if one looks

at the potential sources of pollution at

primary metals facilities, one will soon

discover that one of the principal

sources of contamination is from the air

pollution control devices. The purpose

of the storm water regulations is to keep

storm water from coming into contact

with any contaminants, regardless of the

environmental media from which it

arose. If inspections are routinely

conducted at a facility pursuant to one

environmental statute, that same

inspection will generally be accepted by

another program. For example, if the

facility routinely inspects its air

pollution control devices as a

requirement of its CAA permit, that

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64785

same inspection, with the possibility of

a few additional observations, e.g., to

see if there is any evidence of run off,

should also be accepted as part of the

SWPPP. The SWPPP can cross reference

inspection protocols for the CAA

permit. Thus, EPA does not agree with

the commenter that these requirements

are either redundant, inappropriate or

extend EPA authority.

Section 6.G. Sector G —Metal Mining

(Ore Mining and Dressing)

Comment a: Include Table G–4,

published in the August 7, 1998

modifications, in MSGP–2000. Also,

table titles in this section are confusing

since they appear to imply that effluent

guideline limitations apply to waste

rock and overburden piles.

Response a: We have included the

revised table G–4 from the August 7,

1998 modification in the fact sheet for

today’s permit. The titles of tables G–1

and G–2 are consistent with the titles in

the other sectors of the final permit. All

monitoring tables in Part 6 of the permit

are titled ‘‘SECTOR–SPECIFIC

NUMERIC LIMITATIONS AND

BENCHMARK MONITORING.’’ The

Agency doesn’t not believe that this title

is misleading because each table

contains a column labeled ‘‘Numeric

Limitation’’ which either contains a

numerical value or is blank. For those

Sectors where there are no values listed

in the numeric limitation column it is

clear that numeric limitations do not

apply. EPA recognizes that benchmark

concentrations are not effluent

limitations and is provided specific

language in the permit to that effect.

Comment b: The commenter opposes

EPA’s disallowance of sampling waivers

from monitoring requirements for waste

rock and overburden piles. Another

commenter argued that another waiver

based on ‘‘not present or no exposure’’

had also been deleted. A third

commenter noted that monitoring

requirements were also inconsistent

with the 1998 permit modifications.

Response b: The restriction on

sampling waivers was not intended to

exclude the ‘‘Adverse Climatic

Conditions Waiver’’ in Part 5.3.1 of the

permit. The final permit has been

revised to correct this error. Also, Part

6.G.7.2 has been modified to reflect that

the monitoring requirements only apply

to discharges from active ore mining

and dressing facilities and that these

requirements remain unchanged from

the 1998 permit modification. The

second waiver in Part 5.3 which is

based on ‘‘not present or no exposure’’

was not part of the August 1998 notice,

and was not intended for sector G

facilities.

Comment c: The limitation on

coverage for adit drainage and

contaminated springs or seeps should be

modified to exclude only those that do

not result from precipitation events. The

proposed Certification of Discharge

language is confusing since it implies an

obligation for testing or evaluation of

mining-related discharges that are

composed entirely of non-storm water

covered by an NPDES permit.

Response c: Adit drainage and

contaminated springs and seeps are

discharges that originate below the

surface of the ground. Often they

discharge during dry periods and, while

in some instances these flows may

increase in response to a storm event,

they may continue to flow well after the

precipitation has ended. Therefore, EPA

has determined that the restriction (i.e.,

prohibition) for MSGP coverage of

discharges from adit drainage,

contaminated springs and seeps should

remain as proposed.

The ‘‘Certification of Discharge

Testing’’ language has been modified to

clarify that certification must be

provided to show that any miningrelated discharge has been ‘‘tested or

evaluated for the presence of non-storm

water discharges.’’ Additional wording

has been added to Part 6.G.6.1.6.6 to

make it consistent with the language in

the 1995 MSGP.

Comment d: Provide guidance in

Section 6.G.6.1.6.6 on what type of test

should be performed.

Response d: The language has been

modified to allow for a certification

based on ‘‘tested or evaluated’’

information. Additional wording has

been added to Part 6.G.6.1.6.6 to make

it consistent with the language in the

1995 MSGP.

Comment e: The definition of

‘‘reclamation phase’’ is inconsistent

with most state programs.

Response e: The definition of the

three general phases of mining was

taken from the fact sheet to the 1995

MSGP. The intent was to recognize that

‘‘mining’’ is comprised of several

distinct activities, not to set a standard

for each phase. EPA acknowledges that

reclamation requirements are typically

set by state programs, and therefore the

permit language defining the

reclamation phase has been modified to

reflect other post-mining land uses.

Comment f: In reformatting the permit

language, EPA introduced new

requirements which are inconsistent

with the settlement EPA reached with

NMA in 1998.

Response f: The draft MSGP–2000

intended to incorporate all the

requirements from the 1998 notice

resulting from the settlement with

NMA. However, in making the changes

and converting to a more ‘‘readable’’

format some unintended errors

occurred. The revisions to the

monitoring requirements have been

made so the final permit language is

consistent with the 1998 Federal

Register publication (63 FR 42534, Aug

7, 1998).

Comment g: Delete the phrase

‘‘directly or indirectly’’ from coverage of

‘‘storm water discharges that have come

into contact (directly or indirectly) with

any overburden, raw material,

intermediate product* * *’’ since it is

inconsistent with prior versions of the

permit.

Response g: The storm water

regulations (Section 122.25(b)(14)(iii))

require permit coverage for ‘‘facilities

that discharge storm water

contaminated by contact with or that

has come into contact with, any

overburden, raw material, intermediate

products* * *’’ When revisions were

made to the draft MSGP 2000 language

to make the permit more ‘‘readable,’’

some of the words were changed. In

order to be consistent with the storm

water regulations, the permit language

has been revised. The words ‘‘come into

contact (directly or indirectly)’’ have

been deleted and replaced with

‘‘contaminated by contact or that has

come into contact.’’

Comment h: EPA was incorrect in

stating that all facilities permitted in

this sector are ‘‘no discharge’’ facilities.

Response h: The monitoring

discussion in the Fact Sheet to the

permit is a summary of the data

available at the time the draft permit

was published for public comment. The

main focus of the summary was on data

from the second year of permit coverage.

Of those sector G facilities that

submitted information in year 2 of the

permit none of them reported a

discharge. The 1998 MSGP modification

which reflected the settlement with

NMA and added monitoring

requirements for sector G was much

later in the permit term. The final fact

sheet language has been changed to

recognize the later data and discharge

status of sector G facilities covered by

the permit.

Comment i: Water technically

qualifying as mine drainage but which

meets all applicable surface water

quality standards should be approved

for use in lieu of fresh water for dust

control on roads at mine sites.

Response i: The quality of the mine

drainage can change from source to

source and over time within the same

mine. The MSGP would need to specify

a process (e.g., monitoring frequency) to

ensure that the quality of the mine

64786 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

drainage is protective of water quality.

This type of facility specific

considerations and potential monitoring

requirements would be better addressed

under an individual permit issued to the

facility.

Sections 6.G and 6.J Construction

Requirements for Sector G—Metal

Mining and Sector J—Mineral Mining

Comment a: Commenters questioned

why EPA was requiring coverage under

a construction general permit for earth

disturbing activities during the

‘‘exploration and construction phase’’ of

a mining operation.

Response a: This requirement was

originally contained in the 1995 MSGP

Fact Sheet for Sector J (it was

inadvertently not duplicated in the

metal and coal mining [Sector G]

sectors). It therefore represents a

clarification or technical correction to

the original MSGP. To clarify the

applicability of the MSGP regarding

construction activity at metal mining

sites and to make metal mining

requirements consistent with mineral

mining provisions (Sector J), Sector G

has been modified to indicate that earthdisturbing activities occurring in the

‘‘exploration and construction phase’’ of

a mining operation must be covered

under EPA’s Construction General

Permit (63 FR 7858, February 17, 1998)

or under an individual permit if the area

disturbed is one acre or more. Earthdisturbing activities during exploration/

construction affecting less than one acre

must be covered under the MSGP–2000.

If permittees then opt to actively mine

the site they are required to transition to

the MSGP–2000 (they should terminate

their coverage under the CGP, but there

is no requirement to do so). This

procedure removes commenters’ ‘‘dualpermit requirement’’ fear. Once in the

active phase, any subsequent mine

enlargement would be covered under

the MSGP–2000. All phases of a mining

operation must be covered which

includes the ‘‘reclamation phase.’’ EPA

believes the appropriate level of

environmental protection for initial

land-disturbing mining activities is a

construction permit. SWPPP

requirements under a construction

permit are more effective for the often

temporary conditions found during the

initial phase versus that which would

be appropriate for a more permanent

mining operation. Many of the BMPs

and other SWPPP requirements of the

Construction General Permit could be

incorporated in the MSGP–2000

SWPPP, thereby minimizing any

duplicative efforts.

Comment b: For Sector J for Region 9,

the proposed MSGP only authorized

mine dewatering discharges from

crushed stone, construction sand and

gravel, and industrial sand mines in

Arizona. For Regions 1, 2, 6, and 10,

coverage was proposed throughout the

areas of these regions covered by the

MSGP. Expressions of interest in MSGP

coverage for these discharges have been

received for other areas, such as Indian

country in Nevada and California.

Response b: For consistency with the

other regions, coverage for the

discharges has been extended

throughout the areas of Regions 3, 8 and

9 covered by the permit, provided the

dischargers meet all other permit

eligibility requirements.

Section 6.I Sector I—Oil and Gas

Extraction

Comment: One commenter expressed

concern that while refineries were

covered under Sector I—Oil and Gas

Extraction, refining was not usually

considered ‘‘oil and gas extraction’’ and

the title of Sector I could thus cause

refinery operators to overlook permit

conditions that could apply to them.

Response: EPA welcomes this

suggestion to make the permit easier to

use and the title for Sector I has been

changed to ‘‘Oil and Gas Extraction and

Refining’’ in Table 1–1 and in Part 6.I.

Note however, that any storm water at

a refinery that is subject to storm water

effluent limitation guidelines at 40 CFR

419 is not eligible for permit coverage.

Section 6.R Sector R—Ship and Boat

Building or Repair Yards

Comment: One commenter requested

that the provisions of part 6.R.4.3.1. be

clarified to note that pressure washing

to remove paint would require a

separate NPDES permit.

Response: EPA agrees that if pressure

washing occurs to remove paint, the

discharge of that wash water would

require separate NPDES permit

coverage. EPA also intends for the

discharge of wash waters removing

marine growth to be permitted

separately. The source of the discharge

is not storm water and, as a general rule,

the MSGP only authorizes the discharge

of storm water. The non-storm water

discharges that are authorized by the

MSGP are a specific list found in Part

1.2.2.2. of the permit and the list does

not include pressure wash waters.

Section 6.S Sector S—Air

Transportation

Comment: Commenters had concerns

regarding the execution of site

compliance evaluations and inspections

of deicing areas. They also requested

EPA to limit the inspection obligation to

once per month during periods of

deicing operations.

Response: The MSGP–2000 has been

clarified to state that compliance

evaluations shall be conducted during a

period when deicing activities are likely

to occur (vs. a month when deicing

activities would be atypical or during an

extended heat wave), not necessarily

during an actual storm or when intense

deicing activities are occurring. This

requirement is not seen as onerous, as

EPA believes that most weather

conditions can be reasonably

anticipated and the evaluation can be

planned for. EPA generally agrees that

regularly scheduled, monthly

inspections of deicing areas during the

deicing season (e.g., October through

April) are sufficient at airports with

highly effective, rigorously

implemented SWPPPs. However, if

unusually large amounts of deicing

fluids are being applied, spilled or

discharged, weekly inspections should

be conducted and the Director may

specifically require such weekly

inspections. In addition, personnel who

participate in deicing activities or work

in these areas should, as the need arises,

inform the monthly inspectors of any

conditions or incidents constituting an

environmental threat, especially those

needing immediate attention. EPA

requires permittees to record, to the best

of their ability, the quantity of all

deicing chemicals applied on a monthly

basis (not just glycols and urea, e.g.,

potassium acetate), as discharges of

large quantities of these chemicals can

have an adverse impact on receiving

waters. The capability to record usage of

chemicals should not depend on the

type of chemical used. EPA never

intended to provide a comprehensive

list of technologies and BMP options for

airport operators to consider, nor to

provide a discussion of the relative

merits of each. EPA’s discussion was

simply an introduction of the many

options available and was intended to

stimulate thought on the variety of

BMPs available. EPA intends that storm

water personnel use their best

professional judgment to select siteappropriate measures for inclusion in

their SWPPPs. For a more thorough

source of information on deicing fluid

control and airport deicing operations in

general, stakeholders can check the EPA

publication ‘‘Preliminary Data

Summary, Airport Deicing Operations’’

at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/

airport/index.html.

Section 6.T Sector T—Treatment

Works

Comment: Clarify that treatment

works smaller than 1.0 MGD are not

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64787

defined as industrial activities and,

therefore, are not subject to the permit.

Response: The final permit language

has been modified to be consistent with

the industrial definition of

§ 122.26(b)(14)(ix). The requirements of

Sector T are intended to apply only to

those treatment works with a design

flow of 1.0 MGD or more, or required to

have an approved pretreatment

program.

Section 8 Retention of Records

Comment: Clarify the Retention of

Records language.

Response: EPA has clarified the

Retention of Records language used in

this permit. Part 8.1 states that the

permittee will retain, for three (3) years

after the permit expires or is terminated,

the SWPPP and all documents/reports

needed to complete their Notice of

Intent form. In addition, Part 9.16.2.1

addresses the retention of records for

the permit monitoring requirements for

three (3) years from the date of sample,

measurement, evaluation or inspection,

or report. Permittees are required to

submit Discharge Monitoring Reports

for compliance and/or analytical

monitoring.

Section 9 Standard Permit Conditions

Comment a: Several comments were

received on Part 9.12.1 for requiring

coverage under an individual permit or

an alternative general permit.

Commenters suggest that the permittee

be allowed to appeal a Director’s

decision; provide for determination of

non eligibility and semblance of surety

available by a permittee who

demonstrates eligibility and compliance

with the MSGP; and authorize

automatic transfer provided all storm

water permitting conditions and

obligations are met.

Response a: EPA may modify, revoke

and reissue, or terminate a permit

during its term. Causes for modification,

revocation and reissuance, and

termination are set forth in 40 CFR

§ 122.62 and 122.64. Specific causes

may include: noncompliance by the

permittee with any condition of the

permit; failure in the application or

during the permit issuance process to

disclose fully all relevant facts;

determination that the permitted

discharge endangers human health or

the environment and can only be

regulated to acceptable levels by permit

modification or termination; or there is

a change in any condition that requires

either a temporary or a permanent

reduction or elimination of any

discharges controlled by the permit. In

addition, EPA recently published a final

rule which revises certain regulations

pertaining to the NPDES program,

including the procedures for appealing

an EPA determination on NPDES

permits. See Amendments to Streamline

the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Program

Regulations; Round II, 65 Fed. Reg.

30886 (May 15, 2000). Included in the

rule are revisions to the permit appeals

process that replace evidentiary hearing

procedures with direct appeal to the

Environmental Appeals Board (EAB).

The website for the EAB is ‘‘http://

www.epa.gov/eab/’’. The webpage has a

frequently asked question section,

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/eab/eabfaq.htm’’.

Questions 1 through 9 deal with filing

issues, which the commenter can refer

to for instructions on how to proceed in

filing an appeal with EAB. EPA does not

allow automatic transfer from

individual permits into other individual

or general permits since EPA needs to

maintain adequate records of permittees

and make periodic evaluations of the

adequacy of their measures to comply

with permit requirements.

Comment b: EPA should extend

coverage to facilities wishing to apply

after the expiration date of the MSGP

until the permit is reissued.

Response b: Where EPA fails to

reissue a permit prior to the expiration

of a previous permit, EPA has the

authority to administratively extend the

permit for facilities already covered.

However, EPA does not have the

authority to provide coverage to ‘‘new’’

facilities seeking coverage under an

expired permit. This concern is not

applicable in this instance to the MSGP

since the MSGP–2000 was issued before

the MSGP–1995 expired.

Section 13 Permit Conditions

Applicable to Specific States, Indian

Country Lands

Comment: The Agency should not

require compliance with provisions of

state rules that it cannot specifically

identify. For example, EPA requires

compliance with state anti-degradation

provisions. The Agency provides no

assistance with regard to how a small

business might somehow ascertain what

those provisions are, who has them, and

how they might apply to the facility’s

discharge. See 65 Fed. Reg. at 17021.

The Agency must specify precisely how

a company would obtain appropriate

data and how it should apply that data

to its operations. Without this necessary

guidance, this new provision should be

removed from the final permit.

Response: The permit states that

discharges are not covered if they

violate, or contribute to the violation of,

a state water quality standard. An antidegradation policy is one component of

a state’s water quality standards

program. The permittee is responsible

for checking to ensure compliance with

these provisions. Facility operators can

check with the EPA official listed in this

permit to obtain the name of the

appropriate state contact.

Section I.A General Opposition to

Proposed Changes

Comment: A commenter objected to

several of the proposed modifications to

the ‘‘Limitations on Coverage’’

provisions in the Proposed MSGP–2000,

including the proposed revisions to the

Endangered Species Act requirements

(Section 1.2.3.6), the addition of the

antidegradation provision (Section

1.2.3.9), the addition of the impaired

waters and TMDL provisions (Section

1.2.3.8), and the addition of the

compliance with water quality

standards provisions in Section 3.3.

Response: The Agency acknowledges

the comment. Justifications for each of

the positions cited by the commenter

are provided in the fact sheet

accompanying the permit. Specific

objections to these provisions are

addressed elsewhere in the comment

response document.

Section I.B General Support to

Proposed Changes

Comment a: Several commenters

supported EPA’s continued use of a

general NPDES permit for regulating

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity. The commenters

indicated that this was an efficient and

effective means for achieving the goals

of the Clean Water Act.

Response a: EPA agrees with the

commenters regarding the

appropriateness of general permits for

the majority of industrial storm water

discharges. The issuance of the final

MSGP is consistent with these

comments.

Comment b: A commenter supported

the proposal to authorize incidental

windblown mist discharges from

cooling towers as an authorized nonstorm water discharge under the MSGP.

Response b: These discharges are

included in the final MSGP consistent

with the recommendation of the

commenter.

Comment c: A commenter supported

the provision in the proposed MSGP to

allow termination of permit coverage

based on the ‘‘no exposure exemption’’

(40 CFR 122.26(g)) provided under

EPA’s Phase II storm water regulations

of December 8, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg.

68722).

Response c: Although the no exposure

exemption would be available whether

or not it is specifically included in the

64788 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

MSGP, EPA has retained the provision

in the final MSGP to highlight its

availability for those facilities which

qualify.

Section I.C Fact Sheet

Comment a: It is imperative that EPA

conduct an environmental justice

analysis for the MSGP to ensure that the

permit is consistent with the goals of

EPA’s Environmental Justice Strategy of

April 3, 1995, the President’s 1994

Executive Order on Environmental

Justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act. The notice of intent (NOI) must

include demographic information. EPA

must seek comments of minority and

low-income communities regarding the

MSGP.

Response a: EPA disagrees with the

commenter that an environmental

justice analysis is necessary prior to the

reissuance of the MSGP. Regarding Title

VI requirements, EPA has recently

proposed guidance (65 Fed. Reg. 39649,

June 27, 2000) for assisting recipients of

Federal funding which administer

environmental programs (such as state

environmental agencies), as well as

guidance for investigating alleged

disparate environmental impacts

stemming from permitting programs

administered by these agencies. The

guidance is also appropriate for EPA

permits, such as the MSGP.

The Title VI guidance encourages

permitting authorities to integrate

environmental justice into their

permitting programs. However, an

environmental justice analysis is not

required for every permit issued by a

state permitting authority or by EPA. No

information was provided by the

commenter that a disparate impact on

minorities would exist as a result of the

MSGP. The MSGP includes numerous

effluent limitations and other conditions

which should be protective of water

quality for all neighborhoods in which

permitted facilities are present. EPA

does intend to integrate environmental

justice considerations explicitly into its

permitting programs as outlined in the

Title VI guidance. However, this will

likely be a longer term process

(extending beyond the time frame for

reissuance of the MSGP) given the many

complexities of the issue.

EPA’s Environmental Justice Strategy

of April 3, 1995 (developed pursuant to

the President’s 1994 Executive Order)

has similar goals as Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act. Again, however, an

environmental justice analysis is not

required for every permit issuance. The

integration of the goals of the

Environmental Justice Strategy into the

NPDES permit program will also take

time given the many complexities of the

environmental justice issue.

EPA is committed to implementing

the Executive Order on Environmental

Justice. As a practical matter,

environmental justice concerns are

community specific. EPA will work

with a specific community that may

express concerns related to a specific

source or other environmental burdens.

If and when a community raises such

issues, EPA can then consider a proper

course of action. In the case of the

MSGP which will largely permit

existing facilities, EPA will engage the

community that has raised the issue

and, if appropriate, work with the State

and local agencies to address their

concerns. If violations of any applicable

standards are identified, EPA can

pursue possible enforcement actions.

The MSGP also provides that an

alternate general permit could be issued

for any geographic area which may be

identified in the future as subject to

disparate environmental impacts.

EPA has public noticed its intent to

reissue the MSGP and has requested

comments throughout the areas

potentially affected by the permit,

including areas where minority and

low-income communities are present.

EPA believes that its outreach activities

have been sufficient for the permitting

action which was proposed. However,

EPA’s Environmental Justice Strategy

also provides for additional outreach

activities in the future which may

include outreach to minority and lowincome communities specifically

regarding the MSGP.

EPA disagrees that demographic

information should be required with the

NOI. The NOI does include location

information for industrial facilities

seeking coverage under the permit.

Using this information it is possible to

locate facilities covered by the permit

relative to the locations of different

demographic groups. As such, it is not

necessary for the NOI to include

demographic information.

Comment b: A commenter expressed

concern that some non-storm water

discharges may be improperly

characterized as storm water by certain

facilities. The commenter recommended

that EPA carefully review permit

applications and conduct inspections to

ensure that such discharges are treated

as point source discharges and not

covered by the MSGP.

Response b: Point source discharges

would violate the Clean Water Act

unless they are authorized by a separate

NPDES permit. The MSGP also requires

that operators review their facilities for

the presence of unpermitted non-storm

water discharges which are not

authorized by the MSGP. When such

discharges are located, the MSGP

requires that the discharges be

permitted or terminated. This

requirement should minimize the

possibility that inappropriate non-storm

water discharges are discharged under

the MSGP. As recommended by the

commenter, EPA does conduct periodic

inspections of facilities permitted under

the NPDES permit program to evaluate

the compliance status of a facility with

the requirements of the Clean Water

Act, including the presence of any

unpermitted discharges. Although the

permit application for the MSGP (the

notice of intent) does not specifically

address the issue of non-storm water

discharges, EPA believes that the other

requirements of the MSGP, along with

EPA’s inspection program, adequately

address the commenter’s concern.

Section II.A Organization and Clarity

Comment a: Virtually all commenters

supported EPA’s effort to make the

MSGP smaller and easier to understand.

Several comments did express concern

that the reorganization and clarification

of the permit may have resulted in some

substantial changes in permit

requirements that may not have been

identified and explained in the

preamble to the proposed permit. The

issue of whether or not explanation and

guidance contained in the 1995 MSGP

preamble could still be relied upon was

also raised.

Response a: EPA went to great lengths

to make the permit shorter and easier to

understand and believes all substantive

changes were identified and discussed

in the preamble to the proposed permit.

Responses to specific comments on

areas where a commenter felt that

adequate explanation for changes was

not included in the proposal are

provided in responses to that comment.

With regard to the more specific

explanation of sector-specific activities,

etc. in the preamble to the 1995 MSGP,

this information was incorporated by

reference into the proposal of today’s

permit and may still be relied upon to

the extent it does not conflict with the

MSGP–2000 documents or is

superceded by later guidance.

Commenters noted several instances

where EPA unintentionally changed

requirements through the reformatting.

EPA has corrected the permit and

identified these instances throughout

the comment response document.

Comment b: Based on EPA’s use of

incorporation by reference in the

proposed permit’s preamble to avoid

reprinting material from the 1995

MSGP’s preamble, one commenter

expressed concern that the requirement

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64789

in Part 4.7 to have a copy of the final

permit with the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan would be difficult if the

entire permit was not in a single

package. This commenter also was

concerned that references to multiple

Internet sites for more information

would further compound this problem.

The commenter further suggested that a

copy of the permit and relevant

guidance be included with the NOI

‘‘confirmation’’ letter sent by EPA in

response to a complete NOI. Another

commenter supported making all

relevant information available in a

single document.

Response b: The entire permit,

appropriate addendums, the preamble

‘‘fact sheet,’’ and comment response

summary are being published today in

the Federal Register and will, therefore,

be easily available from several Internet

sites and from Federal Depository

Libraries. The information not repeated

in the proposed permit notice was

primarily background and fact sheet

information from the preamble to the

1995 MSGP. While the preamble and

response to comments sections of the

final permit notice will undoubtedly be

valuable to many permittees, the Part

4.7 requirement to have a copy of the

permit language with the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan refers only to

the permit language itself, including

addendums. Based on experience with

the previous permit, EPA believes the

benefits of keeping the size and

complexity of the permit to manageable

(i.e., less intimidating, easier to use)

level far outweigh the benefit of making

all supporting and guidance

information, much of which will apply

to only a small portion of potential

permittees, available in a single

document. EPA does expect that for

convenience, many permittees will

simply attach a copy of the entire

Federal Register notice of the final

permit to comply with Part 4.7.

EPA believes the references

throughout the permit and preamble to

various Internet sites is a sensible

alternative to publishing information,

only a small part of which may apply

to any one facility or which will be

changing over time and quickly become

outdated. For example, due to periodic

updates that must be made to the

endangered species list based on new

species being listed or old ones delisted,

the county-species list was not

published with the final permit. This

omission saves tax dollars on

publication, keeps the size of the permit

package down (the current list would

double the size of the permit while any

one facility only needs to look at a page

or so of information), and avoids the

inadvertent use of an outdated species

list that could result not only in failure

to consider potential adverse effects on

an endangered species, but also negate

a discharger’s permit coverage. EPA

relies heavily on electronic distribution

of documents and guidance, but will be

able to provide hard copy or telephonebased information to those who have no

access to the Internet or Federal

Depository Libraries.

As noted above, the complete permit

has been printed and EPA intends to

make guidance available, primarily

through the Internet. The suggestion to

include a copy of the permit and

guidance with the NOI ‘‘confirmation’’

letter is impractical since most of this

information would have been necessary

to develop the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan that must be developed

before the NOI can be submitted.

Section III Geographic Coverage of

Proposed MSGP

Comment: Several commenters and

attendees of meetings on the proposed

permit identified an inconsistency

between Part 6.J.3 of the permit, where

mine dewatering discharges from

construction sand and gravel, industrial

sand, and crushed stone mines were

apparently eligible only in Arizona and

both the previous permit and the

preamble to the proposed MSGP–2000

where such discharges were also eligible

in all of the permits for Region 1, 2, 6,

and 10. One commenter referred to

pages 17025 and 17034 of the preamble

to the proposed permit in support of

their belief that the proposed permit had

been intended to provide coverage in

Regions 1, 2, 6, and 10 and in Arizona.

Response: The typographical error in

Part 6.J.3 has been corrected. As

supported by item 4 on page 17025 and

item 2 on page 17034 of the Federal

Register notice of the proposed permit

(65 FR 17025 and 17034), coverage for

mine dewatering discharges from

construction sand and gravel, industrial

sand, and crushed stone mines in not

only Arizona, but also Regions 1, 2, 6,

and 10 was intended.

Section V.A Historic Preservation

Comment a: It would be more in

keeping with balancing the agency’s

CWA mandate and NHPA obligation to

not preclude general permit coverage for

those discharges that may affect historic

properties. Instead, require the general

permittee to notify the agency of the

existence of a listed historic property

that will be affected along with any

preventive or mitigation measures, if

necessary, that it plans to implement.

EPA could then decide if any further

consideration or action is warranted,

including any comment by the Council.

The obligations established under § 106

are placed upon the agency, not on the

permittee.

Response a: EPA agrees and

acknowledges that NHPA Section 106

imposes obligations only on federal

agencies and not on third parties. EPA’s

action in issuing permits, however,

triggers NHPA Section 106. In order to

issue a general permit, EPA included

historic preservation-related application

and eligibility provisions in order to

ensure that it could ‘‘filter’’ out

permitting activities that might

otherwise trigger advanced procedures

under NHPA Section 106. Section

110(k) of the Act prohibits a Federal

agency from granting a loan, loan

guarantee, permit, license or other

assistance to an applicant who intends

to avoid requirements of section 106 (64

FR 95 May 18, 1999). To meet this

responsibility, EPA requires the

applicant to do one of the following: (1)

Determine that historic properties are

not in the path of permit activities, (2)

determine that permit activities have no

impact on historic properties, or (3) the

permittee reaches agreement with

appropriate authorities on measures to

mitigate or prevent adverse effects.

Thus, it is quite possible for facilities

having an impact on historic properties

to be covered by the MSGP.

Authorization to discharge under the

MSGP is a privilege, not a right, which

carries with it certain procedural and

timing advantages for the permittee.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the

permittee, not EPA, to conduct whatever

investigations and consultations are

necessary consistent with EPA’s

obligation to satisfy NHPA provisions.

Comment b: The notice states that the

provisions in Part 1.2.3.7, are ‘‘likely to

change as a result of consultations’’

under the NHPA. The procedures set

forth in Addendum B are described as

being ‘‘models’’ of what the NHPA

guidance ‘‘may look like.’’ These

provisions are critical for permittees to

determine their eligibility for coverage

under MSGP–2000, and any substantive

changes in these areas should be subject

to review and comment by the regulated

community before they are adopted.

Response b: There are no changes to

these provisions as a result of NHPA

consultations.

Comment c: Part 2.1.2.2, which deals

with discharges that are authorized

under the 1995 MSGP, but not clearly

eligible for coverage under this permit,

does not allow adequate transition time

for those permittees who do not have

up-to-date determinations pursuant to

the NHPA.

64790 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Response c: Within 90 days the

permittee must apply for MSGP

coverage and certify his compliance

with other permit provisions. He then

has up to 180 additional days of interim

coverage under the MSGP while he

conducts the consultation and

determines whether he meets the

criteria for coverage under the MSGP.

EPA believes that 270 days is a

sufficient period to conduct and

conclude this consultation and take

whatever action is necessary to ensure

continued permit coverage.

Comment d: EPA states that, ‘‘For

existing dischargers * * * a simple

visual inspection may be sufficient

* * * ’’ (emphasis added). This

statement is somewhat disingenuous

because a ‘‘simple visual inspection’’ is

rarely sufficient to determine historic

eligibility of an area because many

historic resources are often located

underground. EPA should provide

reasonable guidance worded specifically

to shield permittees from liability.

Response d: EPA believes that, for

existing dischargers who do not need to

construct BMPs for permit coverage, a

simple visual inspection may be

sufficient to determine whether historic

properties are affected. However, for

facilities which are new industrial storm

water dischargers and for existing

facilities which are planning to

construct BMPs for permit eligibility,

applicants should conduct further

inquiry to determine whether historic

properties may be affected by the storm

water discharge or BMPs to control the

discharge. In such instances, applicants

should first determine whether there are

any historic properties or places listed

on the National Register or if any are

eligible for listing on the register (e.g.,

they are ‘‘eligible for listing’’). Thus, the

Agency does not imply that a visual

inspection is always sufficient. In

instances of uncertainty, the permittee

is encouraged to consult with

authorities who can advise on the

likelihood of historic properties above

or below ground.

Given the Agency’s obligation to

comply with the NHPA and its efforts to

coordinate that obligation with the

implementation of general permits, the

historic preservation-related eligibility

restrictions cannot provide an ironclad

shield from liability. The permit

guidance provides a common sense

approach to an historic property

assessment. Facility operators are

encouraged to consult with local

authorities who can advise on the

likelihood of historic properties at the

facility.

Comment e: Portions of the text are

reproduced and other portions not

reproduced in columns 1 and 2 of page

17018 of the notice. See 65 F.R. at

17018. Due to this problem, the

commenter is unable to provide any

comments on EPA’s proposed new

changes to the MSGP since he is

uncertain what EPA intends or

proposes. The commenter suggests that

EPA fix the language related to the

proposed MSGP and re-issue that

correction for public review and

comment.

Response e: EPA apologizes for the

typing error which resulted in a number

of sentences being listed twice on p.

1018. Despite this confusion, EPA

believes the intent of the section is clear

and does not require reproposal.

Section V.B Endangered Species

Comment a: The term ‘‘unacceptable

effects’’ is used almost interchangeably

with ‘‘likely to adversely affect’’ (See 65

Fed. Reg. 17051), which is similarly

undefined in the permit and in

pertinent regulation. The correct term

for purposes of ESA compliance is the

‘‘no jeopardy’’ standard set forth in

Section 7 of the ESA (17 U.S.C

§ 1536(a)(2)).

Response a: EPA agrees with the

commenter regarding the term ‘‘avoid

unacceptable effects.’’ Therefore, EPA

has deleted the term and uses the ‘‘no

jeopardy’’ language as stated in part

1.2.3.6.6.

Comment b: The definition of

‘‘discharge-related activities’’ is so allencompassing that it could include

virtually all activities at a mine, from

drilling and blasting to loading, hauling

and dumping and equipment

maintenance, in addition to any

activities that are part of a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

There is no justification for a

requirement to certify ESA compliance

for all of these activities in order to

obtain coverage under the MSGP. This

requirement clearly exceeds EPA’s

authority under the Clean Water Act.

Response b: The endangered species

provision covers only those activities

that are associated with storm water

industrial activity. The phrase

‘‘discharge-related activities’’ is

intended to clarify that EPA considers a

broad range of activities related to storm

water discharges to be covered by the

permit and, therefore, subject to ESA

and NHPA provisions. This broader list

of activities could result in

environmental impairment if not

addressed through a SWPPP. Since the

permit covers this broad range, and

EPA’s permit authority is subject to ESA

provisions, then this broader range of

activities is subject to the ‘‘no jeopardy’’

finding. BMPs, whether already in place

or added, which serve to satisfy the

criteria for coverage under the MSGP,

are thus subject to the endangered

species provisions.

Comment c: While transitional

discharge authorization is available for

up to 270 days from the date of

publication of the permit in the Federal

Register, that transitional coverage is

only available if the permittee submits

an application for an alternative permit

(most likely an individual permit)

within 90 days after publication. Since

formal Section 7 consultation is

nominally a 135-day process (as stated

in the Construction General Permit, see

63 Fed. Reg. 7872), permittees, in order

to ensure continuous coverage, would

be required to prepare and submit an

application for an individual permit

before they knew whether they were

eligible for coverage under MSGP–2000.

This is an unnecessary burden, on both

the permittee and the agency. EPA

should extend these time limits—for

submission of an application for an

alternative permit to 180 days, and for

transitional coverage to one year.

Response c: EPA will retain the

requirement that all applicants must

submit their Notice of Intent (NOI) in 90

days. Those applicants who are entering

into endangered species consultations

or adverse impact investigations could

apply for extensions up to 180 days and

be covered by an interim permit until

their application is completed. EPA

believes that 270 days is a sufficient

period to conduct and conclude this

consultation and take whatever action is

necessary to ensure continued permit

coverage. The County Species list is

available on EPA’s web site or by

contacting a local official. EPA will

update its web site list every 90 days.

Comment d: EPA indicates that the

proposed species-related requirements

could change, before final issuance,

based on consultation with the Fish and

Wildlife Service. The public will not

have an opportunity to participate in

that process, including through

commenting on any additional

requirements suggested by the Service.

If the Service does suggest any

substantial changes in MSGP–2000, the

public should have an opportunity to

review and comment on those changes

before EPA makes a decision as to

whether to incorporate them into the

final permit.

Response d: There are no changes to

these provisions as a result of NHPA

and ESA consultations, except that,

based on comments to the proposed

permit, EPA has deleted the inclusion of

proposed species on the endangered

species list.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64791

Comment e: The duty triggered by the

section of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) upon which EPA relies falls not

upon the discharger but upon EPA.

Thus under EPA’s proposal, it would be

EPA’s duty to assess the impact of each

discharger applying for coverage, and if

this provision is not removed, EPA loses

the benefit of the general permit. The

action of adopting the general permit

itself triggers EPA’s duty, and so EPA,

not the discharger, must assess ESA

impacts now, not after the fact of the

permit.

Response e: EPA is bound by the ESA

and attempted to coordinate general

permit implementation with its ESA

obligations. Authorization to discharge

under the MSGP is a privilege which

carries with it certain procedural and

timing advantages for the permittee.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the

permittee, not EPA, to conduct whatever

investigations and consultations are

necessary to satisfy the ESA-related

eligibility provisions. Since EPA cannot

predetermine which facilities will apply

for coverage under the MSGP, it is

impossible for EPA to conduct the sitespecific assessments required under the

ESA at the time of general permit

issuance.

Comment f: Despite previous

consultation on the problems of earlier

MSGP drafts, certain problems persist,

including the gray area language that

has fueled citizen suits against

permittees. Not only has the agency

failed to adequately address this issue,

it has increased the liability potential by

increasing the requirements for

permittees to comply with other agency

rules. EPA should clarify language to

eliminate the potential for liability for

permittees and should reduce the cost

and paperwork burdens for compliance

with ESA and NHPA.

Response f: Given the operation of the

regulatory innovation, the ‘‘general

permit,’’ EPA cannot provide an

ironclad shield from liability in the way

the commenter proposes. The permit

guidance provides a common sense

approach to endangered species and

historic property assessments. Facility

operators are encouraged to consult

with local authorities who can advise on

the likelihood of endangered or

threatened species, critical habitat, or

historic properties at the facility. EPA

believes the additional burden

associated with the expanded NOI form

is minimal because permittees are

required to make the findings which are

reflected on the form. The additional

information provides greater assurance

that the assessment has been conducted,

but does not in itself constitute the

requirement for the assessment. EPA

acknowledges that, until such time as

the revised form has been cleared by

OMB, permittees will continue to use

the current NOI form (as modified

slightly to conform to changes made

elsewhere to the permit).

Comment g: The endangered species

section of the permit relating to

endangered species is cumbersome and

appears to go beyond the intent of the

Clean Water Act and beyond the EPA’s

authority set in the CWA.

Response g: EPA acknowledges the

comment, but disagrees. EPA believes

these provisions are essential to carry

out its responsibility not to issue a

permit which could jeopardize an

endangered or threatened species, or

critical habitat. EPA has consulted with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the National Marine Fisheries Service to

ensure compliance with the Endangered

Species Act. The ‘‘discharge-related

activities’’ restriction on eligibility also

implements the Agency’s obligations

under NHPA Section 106.

Comment h: The permit should clarify

that coverage of the MSGP, and

certification by the permittee, need

address only new impacts resulting

from new changes in operations for

which discharges are covered and

authorized by the MSGP. In other

words, the ‘‘baseline’’ for assessment of

effects or impacts should be the date of

reissuance of the MSGP or, if later,

initiation of new activities to be covered

by the MSGP.

Response h: All activities covered by

the permit, whether new or existing, are

subject to the provisions. It is

inappropriate to interpret that these

provisions apply only to new activities.

Comment i: The endangered species

section suggests that a potential

permittee utilize ‘‘due diligence’’ in

determining whether or not a potential

impact to an endangered or threatened

species may exist. This language is too

vague and subjective—differing

interpretations what constitutes due

diligence exist. This is particularly true

when dealing with an issue as complex

as impact to endangered species or their

habitats, where the expertise necessary

to make this determination is usually

beyond the reach of most industrial

operators. It is likely that this could

become the focal point of efforts to

block permit issuance by those with

differing agendas. Further clarification

of what is required under ‘‘due

diligence’’ is required.

Response i: EPA believes that the

language must provide flexibility to

reflect the case-by-case decisions which

must be made. In response to the

commenter’s concern, EPA has replaced

the ‘‘due diligence’’ phrase with ‘‘best

judgment.’’ Consultations with local

endangered species officials is advised

if the permittee is uncertain how to

apply these provisions to his facility.

Comment j: Only those species that

have been listed should be identified on

this list and used in the determination

of permit coverage; not those that have

not gone through the entire listing

process.

Response j: EPA acknowledges the

comment and has revised the language

to exclude proposed listing

requirements.

Comment k: In this section, an

applicant is expected to determine

whether endangered species are ‘‘in

proximity’’ to the stormwater discharges

or discharge-related activities at the

facility. In proximity is described as

being ‘‘in the path or down gradient’’ or

in the ‘‘immediate vicinity of or

nearby,’’ the facility. These definitions

are far too vague, and could refer to the

presence of species located a

considerable distance from a facility,

not merely those located close enough

to a facility to be affected by that

facility’s stormwater discharge. This

section requires clanfication.

Response k: EPA has retained this

language from the 1995 MSGP. EPA

believes that the language must provide

flexibility to reflect the case-by-case

decisions which must be made.

Consultations with local endangered

species officials is advised if the

permittee is uncertain how to apply

these provisions to his facility.

Comment l: This section provides that

‘‘where there are concerns that coverage

for a particular discharger is not

sufficiently protective of listed species

(and presumably those proposed for

listing as well) the Services (as well as

any other interested parties) may

petition EPA to require that the

discharger obtain an individual NPDES

permit and conduct an individual

section 7 consultation as appropriate.’’

It is clear that this will provide ample

opportunity to those who would seek to

delay or deny permit issuance, even in

those circumstances where an actual

impact to species or habitat does not

exist. This procedure should be a formal

one in which the permit remains in

force until EPA, after careful and

rigorous scientific evaluation of the

potential impact, determines whether or

not an impact exists and, if so, whether

or not an alternative permit is

warranted.

Response l: Opportunity for public

input is an essential component of any

government regulatory program. As the

commenter suggests, the permit would

remain in effect until such time as EPA

64792 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

concludes that the activity is no longer

eligible for coverage under the permit.

Section V.C 303(d)

Comment a: Several commenters

challenged Parts 1.2.3.8. of the permit

because they believe it inaccurately

applies 40 CFR 122.4(i) regarding

compliance with water quality

standards to discharges covered by a

general permit. Several commenters

believe that one doesn’t have to

consider 40 CFR 122.4(i) if they only

add an outfall and similarly one

commenter believes that new

dischargers under Phase 2 do not have

to consider 40 CFR 122.4(i).

Commenters stated that any provisions

added to the reissued MSGP regarding

impaired waters or TMDLs are

premature until the new TMDL rule is

final. It seems that the major concern is

that previously unpermitted discharges

would be disallowed coverage under

this Part.

Response a: EPA, in Sections 1.2.3.8.1

and 1.2.3.8.2, was merely conditioning

a discharger’s eligibility for coverage

under the MSGP upon meeting certain

existing conditions and requirements in

EPA’s NPDES regulations which apply

in all applicable circumstances

involving both individual and general

permits. In doing so, EPA intended to

merely restate those existing conditions

and requirements as eligibility

requirements under the MSGP.

Specifically, EPA’s intention in section

1.2.3.8.1 was to condition a new

discharger’s eligibility for coverage

under the MSGP upon meeting the

existing regulatory conditions under 40

CFR 122.4(i). A new discharger,

therefore would not be eligible for

coverage under the MSGP if its

discharge would ‘‘cause or contribute to

a violation of a water quality standard.’’

As mentioned, this regulation is

applicable to all new dischargers

irrespective of the type of permit they

are seeking coverage under; there is no

language in this regulation that exempts

new dischargers seeking coverage under

a general permit. EPA, in section

1.2.3.8.1 of the MSGP, did not intend to

create any confusion or change any

existing interpretation of the current

regulatory language referred to in that

section. To avoid confusion EPA is

therefore amending the language in

section 1.2.3.8.1 to state that ‘‘you are

not authorized to discharge if your

discharge is prohibited under 40 CFR

122.4(i).’’

EPA’s intention in section 1.2.3.8.2

was to condition a discharger’s

eligibility for coverage under the MSGP

upon meeting the existing regulatory

requirements under existing 40 CFR

122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). This section of

EPA’s regulations requires permitting

authorities to develop effluent limits in

permits that are ‘‘consistent with the

assumptions and requirements of any

available wasteload allocation for the

discharge prepared by the State and

approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR

130.7’’ (EPA’s existing TMDL

regulations). This requirement applies

to all NPDES permits both individual

and general permits.

Comment b: One commenter

expressed confusion about what is

meant by ‘‘new discharges’’ as this term

is not defined in 40 CFR 122.2.

Response b: The final permit will

omit the term ‘‘new discharge’’ since it

is not necessary for the requirement and

it has caused confusion. Today’s permit

will change the term ‘‘new discharge’’ to

simply ‘‘discharge’’ in the first sentence

of Part 1.2.3.8.1.

Comment c: Eligibility restrictions of

the permit should be limited to those

discharges of pollutants actually listed

in a TMDL.

Response c: Section 1.2.3.8.2 of the

MSGP contains the eligibility

requirement that discharges be

consistent with an EPA established or

approved TMDL. EPA agrees with the

commenter’s suggestion that Section

1.2.3.8.2 should clearly state that such

requirement is only applicable to

facilities discharging the pollutant for

which the TMDL is established. EPA is

therefore, adding this language to

Section 1.2.3.8.2.

Comment d: Discharges to 303(d)

listed or 303(e) listed waters should be

monitored for contaminants that impair

or threaten water quality; however,

monitoring requirements should be

relaxed for other contaminants that do

not impair or threaten receiving water

quality. Several commenters wanted

either exclusive or additional

monitoring of discharges to impaired

waters for pollutants of concern in lieu

of the eligibility requirements based on

whether or not a facility causes or

contributes to the impairment.

Response d: EPA acknowledges that

the MSGP may not contain monitoring

requirements for a pollutant for which

a waterbody is listed as impaired. This

does not eliminate the burden of the

discharger in determining that its

effluent does not cause or contribute to

a violation of water quality standards.

Section 1.2.3.8.1 in the MSGP is an

eligibility provision which restates

existing regulatory requirements, it does

not create new restrictions on any

dischargers. If a discharger cannot meet

the eligibility requirements, then that

discharger is not authorized to discharge

under the MSGP. Under existing

regulations, EPA has the discretion to

establish whatever eligibility

requirements that it believes are

appropriate. Section 1.2.3.8.1 is an

eligibility provision that does no more

than restate existing regulatory

requirements as a condition of being

authorized to discharge under the

permit. It does not dictate, establish or

restrict the use of any particular

framework, effluent limits or permit

conditions within the permit itself or

describe or restate any new

interpretation of the underlying

regulations which it refers to.

Comment e: Several commenters were

not clear how to determine or

implement loadings imposed by

TMDLs. Further they requested that

loadings based on the TMDL be

excluded from the MSGP and addressed

separately so that the regulated

community could have an opportunity

to comment on them. One commenter

stated that the eligibility requirement of

Part 1.2.3.8. is not appropriate because

there was no opportunity to comment

on the TMDL.

Response e: It is not necessary that all

dischargers receive individual

wasteload allocations. EPA’s regulations

at 40 CFR 130.2 define a wasteload

allocation as the portion of the receiving

water’s loading capacity that is allocated

to one of its existing or future point

sources of pollution. EPA has

interpreted this regulation to mean that

each point source must be given an

individual wasteload allocation when it

is feasible to calculate such a wasteload

allocation. EPA believes that states may

find it infeasible to calculate individual

wasteload allocations for all point

sources covered by a specific general

permit. In that case, the TMDL would

establish individual wasteload

allocations for dischargers subject to

individual permits whereas dischargers

subject to a general permit would be

accounted for in the aggregate under a

single wasteload allocation specific to

the general permit under which they are

authorized to discharge.

In addition, wasteload allocations can

be expressed in different ways,

including, percent loading reductions.

See 40 CFR 130.2(i) ‘‘* * * TMDLs can

be expressed in terms of either mass per

time, toxicity, or other appropriate

measures. * * *’’ Effluent limitations

must be consistent with (but not

identical to) the wasteload allocations in

TMDLs. See 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).

Effluent limitations for point source

discharges of storm water may be

narrative limitations that are expressed

in terms of best management practices

(BMPs). This policy is consistent with

EPA’s approach in its Interim Permitting

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64793

Approach For Water Quality-Based

Effluent Limitations in Storm Water

Permits (September 1996, EPA 833–D–

96–001). This interim approach allows

limits to be expressed in the form of

BMPs as a means of satisfying the

requirement that limits derive from and

comply with water quality standards

and are consistent with an EPA

approved or established TMDL.

All dischargers who discharge the

pollutant for which the waterbody is

impaired must be accounted for in the

TMDL. Every point source discharger

located on the impaired waterbody and

discharging the pollutant for which the

waterbody is impaired must be

accounted for under a wasteload

allocation. The State may choose,

however, to give a discharger a

wasteload allocation that would not

require any reduction in loading. In

other words, all facilities discharging

the pollutant for which the waterbody is

impaired must be subject to a wasteload

allocation but all facilities subject to a

wasteload allocation may not be

required to reduce their loads.

Comment f: Several commenters

requested guidance on how to

adequately evaluate a discharge’s

eligibility under Part 1.2.3.8 and 1.2.3.9

of the permit.

Response f: EPA intends the analysis

to be similar to what a permittee under

the previous MSGP had to do in

accordance with Part I.B.3.f. of that

permit. The applicant must avail

himself of all discharge characterization

data or estimation of discharge character

and determine compliance. If the

permittee is able to evaluate eligibility

on his own because he has access to

State Water Quality Standards, 303(d)

lists, TMDLs etc. (all of which are

available either from the permit issuing

authority or in some cases, online) then

he can make his determination,

document the determination process in

his pollution prevention plan, and sign

the NOI. In other cases, the Director may

notify him that he is not eligible for

coverage if such a determination is

made independently, and may require

an application for an individual permit.

Comment g: One commenter

requested confirmation that Part

1.2.3.8.1 applies to facilities constructed

after August 13, 1979 that have not yet

been issued an NPDES permit.

Response g: Part 1.2.3.8.1 applies to

discharges, not facilities, that have

begun after August 13, 1979 that have

not yet been authorized by an NPDES

permit.

Section V.D—Antidegradation

Comment a: The proposed

requirements do not accurately reflect

States’ anti-degradation policy.

Commenters stated that anti-degradation

does not hold a permittee accountable

until a State’s policy is interpreted into

a permit. The State’s review of the

general permit under the CWA 401 is

the extent of applicable anti-degradation

review. Therefore, delete Part 1.2.3.9.

since an individual discharger applying

for general permit coverage cannot

determine how the State’s antidegradation policy, especially regarding

the Tier 2 ‘‘high quality water’’

provisions, will be implemented at a

particular facility.

Response a: EPA, in Sections 1.2.3.8.1

and 1.2.3.8.2, was merely conditioning

a discharger’s eligibility for coverage

under the MSGP upon meeting certain

existing conditions and requirements in

EPA’s NPDES regulations which apply

in all applicable circumstances

involving both individual and general

permits. In doing so, EPA intended to

merely restate those existing conditions

and requirements as eligibility

requirements under the MSGP.

Specifically, EPA’s intention in section

1.2.3.8.1 was to condition a new

discharger’s eligibility for coverage

under the MSGP upon meeting the

existing regulatory conditions under 40

CFR 122.4(i). A new discharger,

therefore would not be eligible for

coverage under the MSGP if its

discharge would ‘‘cause or contribute to

a violation of a water quality standard.’’

As mentioned, this regulation is

applicable to all new dischargers

irrespective of the type of permit they

are seeking coverage under; there is no

language in this regulation that exempts

new dischargers seeking coverage under

a general permit. EPA, in section

1.2.3.8.1 of the MSGP, did not intend to

create any confusion or change any

existing interpretation of the current

regulatory language referred to in that

section. To avoid confusion EPA is

therefore amending the language in

section 1.2.3.8.1 to state that ‘‘you are

not authorized to discharge if your

discharge is prohibited under 40 CFR

122.4(i).’’

EPA acknowledges that the MSGP

may not contain monitoring

requirements for a pollutant for which

a waterbody is listed as impaired. This

does not eliminate the burden of the

discharger in determining that its

effluent does not cause or contribute to

a violation of water quality standards.

Section 1.2.3.8.1 in the MSGP is an

eligibility provision which restates

existing regulatory requirements, it does

not create new restrictions on any

dischargers. If a discharger cannot meet

the eligibility requirements, then that

discharger is not authorized to discharge

under the MSGP. Under existing

regulations, EPA has the discretion to

establish whatever eligibility

requirements that it believes are

appropriate. Again, section 1.2.3.8.1 is

an eligibility provision that does no

more than restate existing regulatory

requirements as a condition of being

authorized to discharge under the

permit. It does not dictate, establish or

restrict the use of any particular

framework, effluent limits or permit

conditions within the permit itself or

describe or restate any new

interpretation of the underlying

regulations which it refers to.

EPA’s intention in section 1.2.3.8.2

was to condition a discharger’s

eligibility for coverage under the MSGP

upon meeting the existing regulatory

requirements under existing 40 CFR

122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). This section of

EPA’s regulations requires permitting

authorities to develop effluent limits in

permits that are ‘‘consistent with the

assumptions and requirements of any

available wasteload allocation for the

discharge prepared by the State and

approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR

130.7’’ (EPA’s existing TMDL

regulations). This requirement applies

to all NPDES permits both individual

and general permits.

Wasteload allocations can be

expressed in different ways, including,

percent loading reductions. See 40 CFR

130.2(i) ‘‘* * *TMDLs can be expressed

in terms of either mass per time,

toxicity, or other appropriate measures

* * *.’’ Effluent limitations must be

consistent with (but not identical to) the

wasteload allocations in TMDLs. See 40

CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). Effluent

limitations for point source discharges

of storm water may be narrative

limitations that are expressed in terms

of best management practices (BMPs).

This policy is consistent with EPA’s

approach in its Interim Permitting

Approach For Water Quality-Based

Effluent Limitations in Storm Water

Permits (September 1996, EPA 833–D–

96–001). This interim approach allows

limits to be expressed in the form of

BMPs as a means of satisfying the

requirement that limits derive from and

comply with water quality standards

and are consistent with an EPA

approved or established TMDL.

The commenter correctly recognizes

the difficulty in determining what

defines ‘‘necessary to accommodate

important economic or social

development’’ in accordance with 40

CFR Section 131.12(a)(2). By statute,

this determination involves public

participation, the assurance that water

quality will be protected, and several

other factors. EPA would have to modify

64794 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

the permit for each discharge in

question in order to comply with 40

CFR Section 131.12(a)(2). Individual

considerations such as these are

contrary to the concept of a general

permit. In addition, public participation

would be impossible since the permit

issuing authority would not know about

the particular discharge to tier 2 waters

before a NOI was submitted. Therefore,

a facility operator must seek coverage

under an individual permit to discharge

to tier 2 waters under 40 CFR Section

131.12(a)(2)’s allowable degradation

provisions to satisfy the requirements

for public participation and protection

of water quality. The only discharges

allowed coverage under today’s permit

are those which do not degrade the use

of a tier 2 water below its existing

levels, even though those existing levels

exceed levels necessary to support

propagation of fish, shellfish and

wildlife and recreation in and on the

water.

Comment b: While the eligibility

requirements disallow the discharge to

cause and contribute to the impaired

water, the permit doesn’t require

monitoring for the pollutant of concern.

This presents the potential for the

permit issuing authority to determine

that a discharge causes or contributes at

a later date than the submittal of the

NOI, effectively creating a violation of

the permit without the permittee being

able to know of it or prevent it.

Response b: There will be situations

where an NOI is accepted by the permit

issuing authority and coverage provided

to a facility that did not meet the

eligibility requirements. Other

situations include changes, such as the

approval of a TMDL, which may cause

a discharge to no longer be eligible.

Upon learning of these types of

situations, the Director may either

require the permittee to submit an

application for an individual NPDES

permit, take an enforcement action,

allow the facility to eliminate the

concern, or any combination of these

actions.

Comment c: The eligibility

requirements require the permittees to

predict the final requirements of the

TMDL rule and the final loadings of

TMDLs approved in the future. Part

1.2.3.8.1 shouldn’t be included in the

permit because it inaccurately applies

122.4(i) to general permittees.

Response c: EPA, in Sections 1.2.3.8.1

and 1.2.3.8.2, was merely conditioning

a discharger’s eligibility for coverage

under the MSGP upon meeting certain

existing conditions and requirements in

EPA’s NPDES regulations which apply

in all applicable circumstances

involving both individual and general

permits. In doing so, EPA intended to

merely restate those existing conditions

and requirements as eligibility

requirements under the MSGP.

Specifically, EPA’s intention in section

1.2.3.8.1 was to condition a new

discharger’s eligibility for coverage

under the MSGP upon meeting the

existing regulatory conditions under 40

CFR 122.4(i). A new discharger,

therefore would not be eligible for

coverage under the MSGP if its

discharge would ‘‘cause or contribute to

a violation of a water quality standard.’’

As mentioned, this regulation is

applicable to all new dischargers

irrespective of the type of permit they

are seeking coverage under; there is no

language in this regulation that exempts

new dischargers seeking coverage under

a general permit. EPA, in section

1.2.3.8.1 of the MSGP, did not intend to

create any confusion or change any

existing interpretation of the current

regulatory language referred to in that

section. To avoid confusion EPA is

therefore amending the language in

section 1.2.3.8.1 to state that ‘‘you are

not authorized to discharge if your

discharge is prohibited under 40 CFR

122.4(i).’’

EPA’s intention in section 1.2.3.8.2

was to condition a discharger’s

eligibility for coverage under the MSGP

upon meeting the existing regulatory

requirements under existing 40 CFR

122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). This section of

EPA’s regulations requires permitting

authorities to develop effluent limits in

permits that are ‘‘consistent with the

assumptions and requirements of any

available wasteload allocation for the

discharge prepared by the State and

approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR

130.7’’ (EPA’s existing TMDL

regulations). This requirement applies

to all NPDES permits both individual

and general permits.

Comment d: The final permit needs to

be clear that the requirements of Part

1.2.3.8.2 only apply to the pollutant of

concern in the TMDL actually being

discharged by the facility. This idea is

in Part 1.2.3.8.1. and should be included

in 1.2.3.8.2 as well. Similarly, EPA

should lift the new source and new

discharger restrictions if there is not a

storm water component of the approved

TMDL. The final permit should clarify

that a facility may not have a specific

allocation in an approved TMDL and as

such may still be eligible for the general

permit.

Response d: Section 1.2.3.8.2 of the

MSGP contains the eligibility

requirement that discharges be

consistent with an EPA established or

approved TMDL. EPA agrees with the

commenter’s suggestion that Section

1.2.3.8.2 should clearly state that such

requirement is only applicable to

facilities discharging the pollutant for

which the TMDL is established. EPA is

therefore, adding this language to

Section 1.2.3.8.2.

Comment e: The eligibility

requirements in Part 1.2.3.9 defeat the

concept of efficiency of a general permit

and should be removed. EPA does not

have the authority to require the

applicant to assess if they support the

use classification of the receiving water

because it increases the cost of applying

for general permit coverage which has

not been evaluated by EPA under the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Furthermore, the duty to determine

whether or not a discharge supports the

use classification of a receiving water is

the permit issuing authority’s

responsibility.

Response e: The concept of the

general permit is to reduce the

administrative burden on EPA and the

regulated community by issuing one

permit for many facilities that would

otherwise all have exactly the same

conditions in their individual permits. If

a facility is not like other ones where it

would have different permit conditions

it should not apply for the general

permit in question. This general permit

only applies to facilities that support the

use classification of the receiving

waters. If they do not, EPA is not

obligated to change the general permit

to include them. The applicant must

seek alternate permit coverage. It is the

permit issuing authority’s responsibility

to ensure that the conditions of the

general permit support use

classifications. It is not their

responsibility to ensure that each

individual discharge authorized by the

permit supports the use. The eligibility

requirements are there to indicate the

type of facility that can be covered

under the permit. The efficiency

intended by a general permit is to

reduce the number of individual

permits and to make application for

NPDES permit easier for those who

qualify for the coverage under the

general permit.

Comment f: The final permit needs to

be clear that a facility may not have a

specific allocation in an approved

TMDL and as such may still be eligible

for the general permit.

Response f: EPA agrees in part with

the commenter that there may be

circumstances under which it is not

necessary that all dischargers receive

individual wasteload allocations. EPA’s

regulations at 40 CFR 130.2 define a

wasteload allocation as the portion of

the receiving water’s loading capacity

that is allocated to one of its existing or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64795

future point sources of pollution. EPA

has interpreted this regulation to mean

that each point source must be given an

individual wasteload allocation when it

is feasible to calculate such a wasteload

allocation. EPA believes that states may

find it infeasible to calculate individual

wasteload allocations for all point

sources covered by a specific general

permit. In that case, the TMDL would

establish individual wasteload

allocations for dischargers subject to

individual permits, whereas dischargers

subject to a general permits would be

accounted for in the aggregate under a

single wasteload allocation specific to

the general permit under which they are

authorized to discharge.

Comment g: Lift the new source/new

discharger restriction if there is not a

storm water component of the approved

TMDL.

Response g: EPA, in Sections 1.2.3.8.1

and 1.2.3.8.2, was merely conditioning

a discharger’s eligibility for coverage

under the MSGP upon meeting certain

existing conditions and requirements in

EPA’s NPDES regulations which apply

in all applicable circumstances

involving both individual and general

permits. In doing so, EPA intended to

merely restate those existing conditions

and requirements as eligibility

requirements under the MSGP.

Specifically, EPA’s intention in section

1.2.3.8.1 was to condition a new

discharger’s eligibility for coverage

under the MSGP upon meeting the

existing regulatory conditions under 40

CFR 122.4(i). A new discharger,

therefore would not be eligible for

coverage under the MSGP if its

discharge would ‘‘cause or contribute to

a violation of a water quality standard.’’

As mentioned, this regulation is

applicable to all new dischargers

irrespective of the type of permit they

are seeking coverage under; there is no

language in this regulation that exempts

new dischargers seeking coverage under

a general permit. EPA, in section

1.2.3.8.1 of the MSGP, did not intend to

create any confusion or change any

existing interpretation of the current

regulatory language referred to in that

section. To avoid confusion EPA is

therefore amending the language in

section 1.2.3.8.1 to state that ‘‘you are

not authorized to discharge if your

discharge is prohibited under 40 CFR

122.4(i).’’

Section V.E Discharges Not Previously

Covered by an Individual Permit

Comment: One commenter requested

clarification of the permit requirement

at Part 1.2.3.3.2.3 to include any specific

storm water BMPs from the old

individual permit in the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan when

transferring from an individual permit

to the MSGP. The commenter

interpreted this condition to mean that

only those specific storm water BMPs

from the old individual permit (and

areas associated with outfalls from the

old permit) needed to be included in the

Plan, and noted an apparent

inconsistency on page 17021, Item F, of

the preamble which states that the Plan

must address the entire facility.

Response: When transferring from an

individual permit to the MSGP, the

requirement at Part 1.2.3.3.2.3 to

include any specific storm water BMPs

from the old individual permit in the

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

is in addition to and not in lieu of the

basic requirements in Part 4. However,

the BMPs brought over from the old

individual permit may satisfy one or

more of the ‘‘basic’’ Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan requirements

under Part 4 and/or the sector-specific

requirements under Part 6. There could

be areas at a facility (e.g., employee

parking lots) that do not need to be

addressed under the permit (and

SWPPP) unless the runoff from such

areas commingles with storm water

associated with industrial activity (or

was previously permitted).

Section VI.A Notification

Requirements

Comment a: The commenter

supported the use of electronic filing of

NOIs, but expressed concern that

facilities without Internet access would

be at a disadvantage.

Response a: It is not the intention of

EPA to only accept electronic

submittals. Electronic submittal is

another alternative which, hopefully,

will be available to the regulated

community in the near future.

Comment b: The commenter does not

support any changes to the NOI form,

and expects any changes to comply with

the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Response b: Any changes to the NOI

form that result in an increase in burden

for the applicant must first be reviewed

and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget. Part of this

review includes compliance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act. Changes to the NOI form

published in today’s permit were

limited to those that provide

clarification in information, as well as

those changes that reflect changes in the

storm water permits issued by EPA. EPA

has determined that these changes do

not represent an increase in burden for

completing the NOI form. As noted in

Section 2.2, the more extensive changes

listed in the March 30, 2000 proposal

need to complete their OMB review

before they can be included in the NOI

form.

Comment c: A commenter supported

inclusion of the no exposure

certification form as an addendum to

the MSGP–2000.

Response c: EPA agrees that providing

the form with the permit is a

convenience for facilities qualifying for

the no exposure exemption. The

certification form is an addendum to the

permit.

Section VI.B Special Conditions

Comment a: The Agency is shifting its

responsibility regarding meeting

minimum technology standards in

NPDES permits to the discharger.

Response a: EPA expects that when a

facility submits an NOI they are familiar

with both the permit and their facility.

They should be able to determine their

eligibility. The permitting authority may

concur with the facility’s assessment, or

not. EPA does not believe that it has

shifted its responsibility on this matter.

Comment b: There was a request to

clarify the requirements in the MSGP–

2000 regarding co-located facilities.

Response b: A facility is considered

co-located if there is a second industrial

activity occurring which meets the

definition of storm water discharge

associated with industrial activity. For

example, a facility operates an auto

salvage yard and also has an area onsite

for scrap recycling. The facility as a

whole would meet the requirements for

Sector M—Auto salvage. The area where

scrap recycling occurs would meet the

requirements for Sector N—Scrap

Recycling. Any storm water discharges

from the scrap recycling area needs to

meet the requirements for both sectors.

The second activity may or may not be

related to the primary industrial

activity. The determination as to

whether something is co-located rests in

the definition of storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity. If a

second activity exists at a facility which

meets one of the categories in the

definition, then the facility has colocated industrial activities.

Section VI.C Common Pollution

Prevention Plan Requirements

Comment a: A commenter expressed

concern about various interpretations

and implementation of the storm water

program, including incorporation of

effluent limits, and stressed ‘‘* * * It is

imperative that the Agency maintains

that SWPPP requirements be interpreted

and implemented in a practicable and

economically feasible manner.’’

Response a: EPA believes that proper

implementation of storm water BMPS

64796 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

will achieve compliance with water

quality standards. EPA is responsible for

implementation of the storm water

program in eight states, various

territories, including Puerto Rico and

District of Columbia; and various Indian

Country lands throughout the country.

For the remaining 42 states, the state

agency is responsible for program

implementation. They have the

authority to interpret and implement the

program as appropriate for their state. It

continues to be EPA’s policy not to

include effluent limitations in storm

water permits. However, a state may

choose to follow a different policy than

EPA’s.

Comment b: There is not a specific

mention of catch basin inserts or fillers

on the listing of BMPs.

Response b: In discussions concerning

BMPs, EPA attempted to provide some

examples of various types of BMPs. By

no means is the listing intended to be

all inclusive. EPA acknowledges that

there are other BMPs, such as catch

basin inserts or fillers, that were not

mentioned in discussions but may be

appropriate in various circumstances.

Section VI.E Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements

Comment a: Monitoring results are an

unreliable indicator of a discharge

problem and they do not provide

confirmation of a problem. Permittees

cannot use results to support facility

management.

Response a: EPA believes that since

analytic monitoring has been performed

by substantial numbers of permittees

only during the fourth year of the 1995

MSGP (many facilities complying with

monitoring requirements in the fourth

year were covered under the earlier

baseline general permit during the

second monitoring year and,

consequently, had no equivalent

monitoring requirement), it is premature

to make any final conclusions regarding

the value of the Agency’s acquisition of

the monitoring data or to consider

dropping the monitoring. In essence, the

fourth-year monitoring data set EPA

received represents the baseline of

pollutant discharge information under

the sector-specific industrial general

storm water permit. Several rounds of

monitoring significantly enhances the

utility of the results for evaluating the

effectiveness of management practices at

the site as well as for the industry sector

as a whole. EPA commits to using data

from the 1995 and 2000 permits to

evaluate the effectiveness of

management practices on an industry

sector basis and to evaluate the need for

changes in monitoring protocols for the

next permit.

EPA acknowledges that, considering

the small number of samples required

per monitoring year (four), and the

vagaries of storm water discharges, it

may be difficult to determine or confirm

the existence of a discharge problem as

a commenter claimed. When viewed as

an indicator, analytic levels

considerably above benchmark values

can serve as a flag to the operator that

his SWPPP needs to be reevaluated and

that pollutant loads may need to be

reduced. Conversely, analytic levels

below or near benchmarks can confirm

to the operator that his SWPPP is doing

its intended job. EPA believes there is

presently no alternative that provides

stakeholders with an equivalent

indicator of program effectiveness.

Comment b: Monitoring results are

not necessarily an indicator of BMP

effectiveness and EPA never justified

that they are.

Response b: While not practicable for

EPA to require an increase in

monitoring, operators are encouraged to

sample more frequently to improve the

statistical validity of their results.

Unless the proper data acquisition

protocol for making a valid BMP

effectiveness determination is rigorously

followed, any other method used to

assess BMP effectiveness would be

qualitative, and therefore less reliable.

The least subjective approach, and most

beneficial to operators and stakeholders,

EPA believes, remains a combination of

visual and analytic monitoring, using

analyte benchmark levels to target

potential problems. Statistical

uncertainties inherent in the monitoring

results will necessitate both operators

and EPA exercising best professional

judgment in interpreting the results.

When viewed as an indicator, analytic

levels considerably above benchmark

values can serve as a flag to the operator

that his SWPPP needs to be reevaluated

and that pollutant loads may need to be

reduced. Conversely, analytic levels

below or near benchmarks can confirm

to the operator that his SWPPP is doing

its intended job.

Comment c: Alternate test methods

can be used for determining

effectiveness of BMPs at a facility, and

benchmarks will need modifying to

account for variability in test methods.

Response c: A technically valid,

deterministic investigation of BMP

effectiveness would necessarily involve

collecting discharge pollutant load data

before and after the BMP. The

constraints inherent in monitoring

preclude requiring this kind of

investigation. All other methods used to

make an assessment of SWPPP/BMP

effectiveness are qualitative. The least

subjective approach, and most

beneficial to operators and stakeholders,

EPA believes, is a combination of visual

and analytic monitoring, using analyte

benchmark levels (or ‘‘targets’’) as an

indicator of potential problems.

Vagaries of storm discharges and

statistical concerns will necessitate

operators and EPA exercising best

professional judgment in interpreting

the results of any monitoring. When

viewed as an indicator, analytic levels

considerably above benchmark values

can serve as a flag to the operator that

his SWPPP needs to be reevaluated and

that pollutant loads may need to be

reduced. Conversely, analytic levels

below or near benchmarks can confirm

to the operator that his SWPPP is doing

its intended job.

Comment d: (a) The presumption of

an impact on water quality standards by

storm water is inappropriate given the

episodic nature of storms. (b) EPA

recognizes that during a storm, water

quality standards will not always be

met, so EPA shouldn’t rely on water

quality standards at a discharge point to

determine if a facility is in compliance.

(c) Monitoring has marginal value in

assessing and protecting water quality.

Response d: (a) It is true that many

impacts of storm water are short-term

and that many pollutants are not really

toxic or bioaccumulative. A short term

water quality standard violation is not

necessarily going to persist long enough

to be toxic. (b) In the absence of

establishing discharge pollutant loads

that correlate directly to a receiving

water, as would be done for an

individual permit, EPA settled on

benchmark levels which would, under

nearly all scenarios, be protective of

water quality standards. Recognizing the

shortcomings of these generic pollutant

levels, EPA only intends for them to be

used as indicators of possible problems

and as a flag to reevaluate the SWPPP—

not as a trigger to begin mandatory

SWPPP or operational revisions unless,

after employing BPJ, the operator deems

such revisions are necessary. (c) While

end-of-pipe/end-of-property analytic

monitoring for storm water may not

reflect potential impacts to water

quality, EPA does not intend to use the

data for that purpose.

Comment e: EPA needs to reevaluate

the validity of benchmark values.

Response e: Universal benchmark

levels cannot be established; the next

best thing would be storm water

pollutant loadings vis-a-vis water

segment-specific TMDLs. But when

used as a target or indicator, without

requiring specific corrective actions

beyond using BPJ to reassess present

conditions and make any changes

deemed necessary, the present

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64797

benchmarks are adequate. In specific

situations operators may reasonably

conclude, after analyzing monitoring

results above benchmarks, their present

SWPPPs/BMPs are adequately

protective of water quality, or that other

conditions such as discharging to lowquality, ephemeral streams may obviate

the need for SWPPP/BMP revisions.

Comment f: Monitoring diverts

resources from more effective

implementation of SWPPPs. EPA should

focus on pollution prevention, instead.

Response f: In developing the

monitoring requirements, i.e., pollutants

of concern, monitoring waivers, etc.,

along with providing sampling and

monitoring guidances, EPA endeavored

to make the financial burden as minimal

as possible. Four quarterly samples is a

minimal data set for evaluating the

effectiveness of SWPPPs. Those least

able to afford expansive monitoring

programs, i.e., small businesses, likely

have few outfalls to begin with. EPA

believes that if monitoring is required at

a facility, it should be planned for and

budgeted as a cost of doing business.

Comment g: Permittees fear

benchmark limits would be viewed as

effluent limitations.

Response g: EPA agrees that

benchmark limits are not effluent

limitations and should not be used, in

and of themselves, as the basis for

issuing an enforcement violation.

Comment h: Storm water discharge

variability can be caused by

atmospheric/dry deposition, run on and

fate in transport; facilities with

structural leachate are at a disadvantage

vis-a-vis those without the problem.

Response h: EPA acknowledges the

potential for adding pollutants to a

facility’s discharges from external or

structural sources. A permittee is,

nonetheless, still legally responsible for

the quality of all discharges from his/her

site—but not from pollutants that may

be introduced outside the boundaries of

his/her property or the areas where his/

hers structures, industrial activities or

materials are located. Anything that

increases the pollutant load in the

runoff prior to leaving the site, whether

originating from air deposition, run-on

from nearby sites, or leachate from onsite structures, remains the

responsibility of the permittee. This was

affirmed in the ruling by the

Environmental Appeals Board against

the General Motors Corp. CPC-Pontiac

Fiero Plant in December 1997.

Comment i: Allow pollutant credits

for background sources of pollution.

Response i: Pollutant credits for

background sources of pollution is

unfeasible for storm water. Either EPA

or the permittee would have to

determine the pollutant loads of both

the run-on and runoff to calculate

pollutant credits. Resources are

insufficient to implement this practice.

Comment j: Differences in monitoring

results may result from changes in

business conditions; changes in

personnel doing monitoring can make

observations/discharge examinations

unreliable.

Response j: EPA published guidance

on both monitoring and sampling

procedures (available from EPA’s Office

of Water Resource Center) to

standardize data collection practices.

Comment k: The same person cannot

always do monitoring. Having to rely on

different people is bad for consistency

in recording observations and making

discharge examinations.

Response k: EPA requires that

personnel implementing the SWPPP be

provided training as an element of the

SWPPP. This training must cover

program elements to ensure the quality

and validity of all information collected.

Comment l: Sampling can be

dangerous.

Response l: EPA provides waivers and

options such that extreme weather or

perilous conditions are accounted for.

Comment m: Determining whether a

storm qualifies to be monitored is

difficult.

Response m: EPA has always defined

what constitutes a storm event worthy

of monitoring. Modern weather

forecasting is making it easier to

anticipate and plan for qualifying

storms.

Comment n: Monitoring in remote

west or arid/semi-arid areas is difficult

and burdensome.

Response n: EPA has always had

accommodations and waivers for lack of

qualifying storm events. See EPA

Response o below.

Comment o: EPA should reduce

analytic monitoring and visual

monitoring based on average rainfall

(similar to Phase II regulations).

Response o: EPA already allows

permittees to skip monitoring in any

quarter in which no qualifying storm

events occur.

Comment p: Some discharges (in the

west) occur only infrequently and

sometimes only to isolated, ephemeral

streams (which may have no indigenous

biota).

Response p: Ephemeral streams may

still eventually flow into permanent

waters of the U.S.; hence, protective

measures may still be needed to protect

water quality. If there are truly no water

quality standards established for an

ephemeral stream and the outflow does

not feed another water body, then it’s

likely there would not be a ‘‘point

source discharge’’ and no permit would

be required. Only those point source

discharges to waters of the U.S. need to

be included in a SWPPP.

Comment q: Continuation of

monitoring is not justified, especially

for mining sectors.

Response q: EPA believes that since

analytic monitoring has been performed

by substantial numbers of permittees

only during the fourth year of the 1995

MSGP (many facilities complying with

monitoring requirements in the fourth

year were covered under the earlier

baseline general permit during the

second monitoring year and,

consequently, had no equivalent

monitoring requirement), it is premature

to make any final conclusions regarding

the value of the Agency’s acquisition of

the monitoring data or to consider

dropping the monitoring. In essence, the

fourth-year monitoring data set EPA

received represents the baseline of

pollutant discharge information under

the sector-specific industrial general

storm water permit. Several rounds of

monitoring significantly enhance the

utility of the results for evaluating the

effectiveness of management practices at

the site as well as for the industry sector

as a whole. EPA commits to using data

from the 1995 and 2000 permits to

evaluate the effectiveness of

management practices on an industry

sector basis and to evaluate the need for

changes in monitoring protocols for the

next permit.

EPA acknowledges that, considering

the small number of samples required

per monitoring year (four), and the

vagaries of storm water discharges, it

may be difficult to determine or confirm

the existence of a discharge problem as

a commenter claimed. When viewed as

an indicator, analytic levels

considerably above benchmark values

can serve as a flag to the operator that

his SWPPP needs to be reevaluated and

that pollutant loads may need to be

reduced. Conversely, analytic levels

below or near benchmarks can confirm

to the operator that his SWPPP is doing

its intended job. EPA believes there is

presently no alternative that provides

stakeholders with an equivalent

indicator of program effectiveness.

Comment r: EPA has not provided

guidance on monitoring snow melt

events.

Response r: EPA does not have any

specific guidance on this matter at the

present time. Guidance may be

developed in the future. In the interim,

however, EPA believes that facilities

should be able to obtain reasonably

representative samples using their best

judgment. Two important points must

be considered to ensure the snow melt

64798 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

sample is representative: (1) The melted

runoff must come in contact with any

pollutants of concern present and not be

overly ‘‘contaminated’’ with

concentrated surficial deposits of

hydrocarbons, dirt, salt, etc., and (2) the

melted runoff must have characteristics

that approximate those of a monitorqualifying rain storm (0.1 inch runoff

volume, sampled within the first 1⁄2 up

to 1 hour).

Comment s: (a) In addition to

monitoring results, EPA should also

require submission of a description of

storm water controls being

implemented. (b) EPA should require

facilities to monitor for pollutants

similar to what would be done under an

individual permit (to ensure BMPs are

being implemented). (c) Monitoring will

aid the permittee, permitting authority

and the public in understanding the

sources and toxicity of storm water at a

site.

Response s: (a) EPA already requires

that all BMPs and other controls be

described in the SWPPP, including

inspections, maintenance, etc. Any BMP

changes or additions must be added to

an updated SWPPP, so EPA will not

require this information be formally

submitted. If EPA needs to inspect a

facility or determine an enforcement

issue, the facility’s SWPPP will be

reviewed for BMP information. (b)

Customizing a facility’s monitoring

requirements is tantamount to writing

an individual permit for the facility,

which would require the same

application package as for an individual

permit. This is an option for those

facilities where discharges or receiving

waters are a concern but, otherwise,

EPA believes the requirements of the

present general permit with the

identified pollutants of concern is

sufficient for a large majority of

facilities. (c) EPA agrees that monitoring

can be used as an indicator of potential

problems or toxicity concerns.

Comment t: Submit Discharge

Monitoring Reports (DMRs) along with

NOIs to prove compliance. If no DMRs

were submitted under the current

MSGP, require quarterly monitoring for

all five years of MSGP–2000.

Response t: DMR and NOI submission

deadlines have not coincided in the past

and, from a regulatory perspective, it is

not feasible to link them. Past instances

of non-compliance are an enforcement

issue with established penalties in the

CFRs, but these instances do not

automatically preclude future permit

coverage nor can EPA include separate

‘‘penalties’’ such as 5-year monitoring in

the permit for them.

Comment u: Analytic monitoring may

be good for general info, which may be

of use to the facility and regulatory

agency, but it should not be required

under the permit. Only visual

monitoring should be required. One

commenter indicated that analytic

monitoring may be good for watershedwide indications of general trends.

Response u: EPA believes that since

analytic monitoring has been performed

by substantial numbers of permittees

only during the fourth year of the 1995

MSGP (many facilities complying with

monitoring requirements in the fourth

year were covered under the earlier

baseline general permit during the

second monitoring year and,

consequently, had no equivalent

monitoring requirement), it is premature

to make any final conclusions regarding

the value of the Agency’s acquisition of

the monitoring data or to consider

dropping the monitoring. In essence, the

fourth-year monitoring data set EPA

received represents the baseline of

pollutant discharge information under

the sector-specific industrial general

storm water permit. Several rounds of

monitoring significantly enhance the

utility of the results for evaluating the

effectiveness of management practices at

the site as well as for the industry sector

as a whole. EPA commits to using data

from the 1995 and 2000 permits to

evaluate the effectiveness of

management practices on an industry

sector basis and to evaluate the need for

changes in monitoring protocols for the

next permit.

EPA acknowledges that, considering

the small number of samples required

per monitoring year (four), and the

vagaries of storm water discharges, it

may be difficult to determine or confirm

the existence of a discharge problem.

When viewed as an indicator, analytic

levels considerably above benchmark

values can serve as a flag to the operator

that his SWPPP needs to be reevaluated

and that pollutant loads may need to be

reduced. Conversely, analytic levels

below or near benchmarks can confirm

to the operator that his SWPPP is doing

its intended job. EPA believes there is

presently no alternative that provides

stakeholders with an equivalent

indicator of program effectiveness. A

technically valid, deterministic

investigation of BMP effectiveness

would necessarily involve collecting

discharge pollutant load data before and

after the BMP. The constraints inherent

in monitoring preclude requiring this

kind of investigation. All other methods

used to make an assessment of SWPPP/

BMP effectiveness are qualitative.

Quarterly visual monitoring of storm

water discharges has always been a

permit requirement, for many of the

same reasons why commenters favor it,

and will continue to be so. The least

subjective approach, and most

beneficial to operators and stakeholders,

EPA believes, is a combination of visual

and analytic monitoring, using analyte

benchmark levels (or ‘‘targets’’) as an

indicator of potential problems.

Variability of storm discharges and

statistical concerns will necessitate

operators and EPA exercising best

professional judgement in interpreting

the results of any monitoring.

Monitoring in impaired water bodies

would focus attention on the problem

water bodies and possible pollutant

sources. However, not all impaired

water bodies and their impairments

have been determined. The goal of

EPA’s storm water program is also to

protect and maintain water quality, not

just remediate impaired waters, so

focusing on impaired waters only does

not fulfill all the program’s

responsibilities.

Comment v: If monitoring results are

below the benchmark, facilities should

not be required to monitor unless there

are major changes to the facility.

Response v: Several rounds of

monitoring significantly enhances the

utility of the results for evaluating the

effectiveness of management practices at

the site as well as for the industry sector

as a whole. EPA is keeping the

monitoring requirement for all specified

sectors at least one more time to provide

stakeholders with continued assurance

that SWPPPs are being implemented,

concerted efforts to protect water quality

are ongoing, and a mechanism is in

place to indicate potential problems.

The previous second year monitoring

waiver for facilities with pollutant

levels below the benchmark level is

being retained.

Comment w: Substantially identical

outfalls reduces burden and is beneficial

to SWPPP implementation.

Response w: Noted.

Visual Monitoring

Comment x: Numerous commenters

supported dropping analytic monitoring

from the MSGP–2000 in favor of just

requiring quarterly visual monitoring.

Commenters claimed visual monitoring

is adequate to ensure compliance and

environmental protection (especially

coupled with training), and is least

burdensome.

Response x: Quarterly visual

monitoring of storm water discharges

has always been a permit requirement,

for many of the same reasons why

commenters favor it, and will continue

to be so. EPA will also be retaining

analytic monitoring because we believe

the best way to ensure SWPPP

effectiveness and protection of water

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64799

quality is through a combination of

visual and analytic monitoring. The

reasons for not adopting visual

monitoring only are explained further in

the rationale for justifying quarterly

analytic monitoring.

Comment y: Operators need flexibility

to collect representative samples for

visual monitoring.

Response y: EPA believes the same

representative sample reduction

provided for analytic monitoring is

inappropriate for the quarterly visual

monitoring. A visual examination of all

discharges is the least that operators can

do to ensure all discharges are clean and

would provide greater confirmation to

themselves and other stakeholders that

the representative discharge sample

reduction claimed for analytic

monitoring is, in fact, justified.

Comment z: Support visual

monitoring with use of field test kits,

which are cheaper and easier than 40

CFR 136.

Response z: Field test kits have not

yet been confirmed as being as reliable

as currently required analytical

methods. Therefore, EPA is not allowing

the use of kits in place of currently

required analytical methods at this time.

Comment aa: Make visual evaluations

standard.

Response aa: EPA has standard

protocols for storm water sampling (the

storm water sampling guidance can be

obtained from EPA’s Office of Water

Resource Center at 202–260–7786) and

the permit describes the examination

procedures, parameters to be examined,

meaning of results, etc.

Comment bb: Visual monitoring

should be reduced commensurately in

arid climates.

Response bb: EPA already allows

permittees to document in their

monitoring records that no discharge

occurred during a monitoring quarter.

Annual Reporting

Comment cc: One option suggested by

commenters was for an annual report,

possibly using a standardized form, to

be submitted to EPA detailing the

permittee’s SWPPP highlights and

revisions/additions, inspections,

compliance evaluations, visual

monitoring results, etc. One comment

against this option stated that the

volume of data submitted would be too

great for the Agency to evaluate. Other

opponents to this option indicated that

the reports would not contain enough

information to evaluate SWPPP

effectiveness, ensure water quality

protection, or provide the information

necessary to make long-term

management plans. Commenters in

support of the annual report concept

held that it would provide a record of

the permittee’s commitment to storm

water control, was better for evaluating

SWPPP effectiveness, and would

provide information to EPA to

determine if sampling or a site

inspection is needed.

Response cc: Information on SWPPP

highlights and revisions/additions,

inspections, compliance evaluations,

visual monitoring results, etc. is already

required to be documented in a facility’s

SWPPP, which, if deemed necessary,

must be provided to EPA on demand. If

no monitoring data were available, an

annual report could be used to ensure

that a facility is implementing its

SWPPP. The reports could also be used

to prioritize sites for inspection.

However, EPA agrees that it would be

very burdensome to review all the

reports and very difficult to assess the

effectiveness of a facility’s SWPPP based

on that review alone. The subjectivity

inherent in annual reporting makes it an

undesirable substitute for analytic

monitoring. Documenting the kind of

information in the annual report is

already a SWPPP requirement and is,

therefore, available to operators for

assessing and improving their storm

water programs. For these reasons, EPA

will not require reports containing

essentially the same information

required in SWPPPs to be submitted in

lieu of analytic monitoring.

Group Monitoring

Comment dd: Commenters also

suggested group monitoring. In this

option a consortium of like permittees

would do sampling at one facility,

possibly on a rotating basis. The sample

results would represent all the facilities

in the consortium. A variation of group

monitoring is for the consortium to

retain a consultant to do representative

sampling and provide storm water

program guidance and evaluations.

Supporters of this concept said it may

allow for comparisons of effectiveness

of different SWPPP practices (e.g.,

sweeping vs. catchment basin for solids

control). One commenter pointed out

that the feasibility of the group concept

is suspect due to the fact that individual

facilities may have different topography,

soil and other natural conditions.

Response dd: EPA believes that

technically valid BMP comparisons

could be done under this type of

program. However, it would be difficult

and very resource-intensive for EPA to

establish criteria for group eligibility

and then monitor to ensure that groups

met these criteria.

Watershed Monitoring

Comment ee: Commenters suggested

conducting watershed monitoring rather

than monitoring at the facility. This

option involves replacing the

monitoring of discrete storm water

discharges with ambient receiving water

monitoring on a watershed basis.

Response ee: Watershed monitoring is

invaluable to making real conclusions

regarding storm water impacts of water

quality, and will be employed in making

total maximum daily load (TMDL)

determinations. However, watershed

monitoring cannot replace facilityspecific storm water discharge

monitoring to determine the loads

contributed by the facilities and to

evaluate the effectiveness of the SWPPP.

Monitoring Only in Impaired Waters

Comment ff: Several commenters

supported requiring monitoring only in

impaired water bodies and for

pollutants that cause the impairment.

Response ff: Although this option

would focus attention on the problem

water bodies and possible pollutant

sources, EPA and a commenter point

out that not all impaired water bodies

and their impairments have been

determined. The goal of EPA’s storm

water program is also to protect and

maintain water quality, not just

remediate impaired waters, so focusing

on impaired waters only does not fulfill

all the program’s responsibilities.

Section VII Cost Estimates for

Common Permit Requirements

Comment: EPA incorrectly estimated

costs associated with the original MSGP.

The new permit imposes even more

costs. EPA must better estimate these

costs, especially for small businesses.

EPA should conduct a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis as well as perform

a Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

consultation.

Response: The Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA), as amended by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) generally

requires an agency to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis for any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute. Under section 605(b) of

the RFA, however, if the head of an

agency certifies that a rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, the

statute does not require the agency to

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

The MSGP–2000 provides facilities

the option of obtaining a general permit

64800 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

rather than applying for individual

permits; it does not extend coverage of

the existing NPDES regulations.

Therefore, the costs associated with

obtaining a permit were already

addressed when the NPDES regulations

were issued. Furthermore, the MSGP–

2000 is intended to reduce costs by

providing a streamlined procedure for

obtaining permit coverage. For these

reasons, there was no requirement on

EPA to conduct a separate analysis to

support the MSGP–2000.

X. Economic Impact (Executive Order

12866)

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; create a

serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; materially

alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

EPA has determined that the reissued

MSGP is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under the terms of Executive

Order 12866 and is therefore not subject

to formal OMB review prior to proposal.

XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 201 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, generally requires Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

‘‘regulatory actions’’ on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. UMRA uses the term ‘‘regulatory

actions’’ to refer to regulations. (See,

e.g., UMRA section 201, ‘‘Each agency

shall * * * assess the effects of Federal

regulatory actions * * * (other than to

the extent that such regulations

incorporate requirements specifically

set forth in law)’’ (emphasis added)).

UMRA section 102 defines ‘‘regulation’’

by reference to 2 U.S.C. 658 which in

turn defines ‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ by

reference to section 601(2) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). That

section of the RFA defines ‘‘rule’’ as

‘‘any rule for which the agency

publishes a notice of proposed

rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b) of

[the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)], or any other law * * * ’’

As discussed in the RFA section of

this notice, NPDES general permits are

not ‘‘rules’’ under the APA and thus not

subject to the APA requirement to

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking. NPDES general permits are

also not subject to such a requirement

under the CWA. While EPA publishes a

notice to solicit public comment on

draft general permits, it does so

pursuant to the CWA section 402(a)

requirement to provide ‘‘an opportunity

for a hearing.’’ Thus, NPDES general

permits are not ‘‘rules’’ for RFA or

UMRA purposes.

EPA has determined that today’s

MSGP reissuance does not result in

expenditures of $100 million or more

for State, local and Tribal governments,

in the aggregate, or the private sector in

any one year.

The Agency also believes that the

final MSGP will not significantly nor

uniquely affect small governments. For

UMRA purposes, ‘‘small governments’’

is defined by reference to the definition

of ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’

under the RFA. (See UMRA section

102(1), referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which

references section 601(5) of the RFA.)

‘‘Small governmental jurisdiction’’

means governments of cities, counties,

towns, etc., with a population of less

than 50,000, unless the agency

establishes an alternative definition.

Today’s final MSGP also will not

uniquely affect small governments

because compliance with the final

permit conditions affects small

governments in the same manner as any

other entities seeking coverage under

the final permit.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has reviewed the requirements

imposed on regulated facilities resulting

from the final MSGP under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information

collection requirements of the MSGP

have already been approved in previous

submissions made for the NPDES permit

program under the provisions of the

CWA.

XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Agency has determined that the

final MSGP being published today is not

subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), which generally requires an

agency to conduct a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any significant

impact the rule will have on a

substantial number of small entities. By

its terms, the RFA only applies to rules

subject to notice-and-comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’)

or any other statute. Today’s final MSGP

is not subject to notice and comment

requirements under the APA or any

other statute because the APA defines

‘‘rules’’ in a manner that excludes

permits. See APA section 551(4), (6),

and (8).

APA section 553 does not require

public notice and opportunity for

comment for interpretative rules or

general statements of policy. In addition

to finalizing the new MSGP, today’s

notice repeats for the convenience of the

reader an interpretation of existing

regulations promulgated almost twenty

years ago. The action would impose no

new or additional requirements.

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.), operators of

discharges associated with industrial

activities that submit a complete Notice

of Intent in accordance with Part 2.2 for

a discharge that is located in an area

specified in Part 1.1 and eligible for

permit coverage under Part 1.2 are

authorized to discharge pollutants to

waters of the United States in

accordance with the conditions and

requirements set forth herein.

This permit becomes effective on

October 30, 2000.

This permit and the authorization to

discharge expire at midnight, October

30, 2005.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64801

Signed and issued this 15th day of

September, 2000.

Linda M. Murphy,

Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection,

Region 1.

Signed and issued this 15th day of

September, 2000.

Kathleen C. Callahan,

Director, Division of Environmental Planning

and Protection, Region 2.

Signed and issued this 15th day of

September, 2000.

Joseph T. Piotrowski,

Acting Director, Water Protection Division,

Region 3.

Signed and issued this 12th day of

September, 2000.

Douglas Mundrick,

Acting Deputy Division Director, Water

Management Division, Region 4.

Signed and issued this 27th day of

September, 2000.

Sam Becker,

Acting Director, Water Quality Protection

Division, Region 6.

Signed and issued this 2d day of October,

2000.

Stephen S. Tuber,

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator,

Office of Partnerships and Regulatory

Assistance, Region 8.

Signed and issued this 28th day of

September, 2000.

Alexis Strauss,

Director, Water Division, Region 9.

Signed and issued this 14th day of

September, 2000.

Michael A. Bussell,

Deputy Director, Office of Water, Region 10.

NPDES Multi-Sector General Permits

for Storm Water Discharges Associated

With Industrial Activities

Table of Contents

1. Coverage Under This Permit

1.1 Permit Area

1.2 Eligibility

1.3 How to Obtain Authorization Under

This Permit

1.4 Terminating Coverage

1.5 Conditional Exclusion for No

Exposure

2. Notice of Intent Requirements

2.1 Notice of Intent (NOI) Deadlines

2.2 Contents of Notice of Intent (NOI)

2.3 Use of NOI Form

2.4 Where to Submit

2.5 Additional Notification

3. Special Conditions

3.1 Hazardous Substances or Oil

3.2 Additional Requirements for Salt

Storage

3.3 Discharge Compliance With Water

Quality Standards

4. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans

4.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan Requirements

4.2 Contents of Plan

4.3 Maintenance

4.4 Non-Storm Water Discharges

4.5 Documentation of Permit Eligibility

Related to Endangered Species

4.6 Documentation of Permit Eligibility

Related to Historic Places

4.7 Copy of Permit Requirements

4.8 Applicable State, Tribal or Local

Plans

4.9 Comprehensive Site Compliance

Evaluation

4.10 Maintaining Updated SWPPP

4.11 Signature, Plan Review and Making

Plans Available

4.12 Additional Requirements for Storm

Water Discharges Associated With

Industrial Activity From Facilities

Subject to EPCRA Section 313 Reporting

Requirements

5. Monitoring Requirements and Numeric

Limitations

5.1 Types of Monitoring Requirements

and Limitations

5.2 Monitoring Instructions

5.3 General Monitoring Waivers

5.4 Monitoring Required by the Director

5.5 Reporting Monitoring Results

6. Sector-Specific Requirements for Industrial

Activity

6.A Sector A—Timber Products

6.B Sector B—Paper and Allied Products

Manufacturing

6.C Sector C—Chemical and Allied

Products Manufacturing

6.D Sector D—Asphalt Paving and

Roofing Materials and Lubricant

Manufacturers

6.E Sector D—Glass, Clay, Cement,

Concrete, and Gypsum Products

6.F Sector F—Primary Metals

6.G Sector G—Metal Mining (Ore Mining

and Dressing)

6.H Sector H—Coal Mines and Coal

Mining Related Facilities

6.I Sector I—Oil and Gas Extraction and

Refining

6.J Sector J—Mineral Mining and

Dressing

6.K Sector K—Hazardous Waste

Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facilities

6.L Sector L—Landfills, Land Application

Sites and Open Dumps

6.M Sector M—Automobile Salvage

Yards

6.N Sector N—Scrap Recycling and Waste

Recycling Facilities

6.O Sector O—Steam Electric Generating

Facilities

6.P Sector P—Land Transportation and

Warehousing

6.Q Sector Q—Water Transportation

6.R Sector R—Ship and Boat Building or

Repair Yards

6.S Sector S—Air Transportation

6.T Sector T—Treatment Works

6.U Sector U—Food and Kindred

Products

6.V Sector V—Textile Mills, Apparel and

Other Fabric Products

6.W Sector W—Furniture and Fixtures

6.X Sector X—Printing and Publishing

6.Y Sector Y—Rubber, Miscellaneous

Plastic Products and Miscellaneous

Manufacturing Industries

6.Z Sector Z—Leather Tanning and

Finishing

6.AA Sector AA—Fabricated Metal

Products

6.AB Sector AB—Transportation

Equipment, Industrial or Commercial

Machinery

6.AC Sector AC—Electronic, Electrical

Equipment and Components,

Photographic and Optical Goods

6.AD Storm Water Discharges Designated

By the Director As Requiring Permits

7. Reporting

7.1 Reporting Results of Monitoring

7.2 Additional Reporting for Dischargers

to a Large or Medium Municipal

Separate Storm Sewer System

7.3 Miscellaneous Reports

8. Retention of Records

8.1 Documents

8.2 Accessibility

8.3 Addresses

8.4 State, Tribal, and Other Agencies

9. Standard Permit Conditions

9.1 Duty to Comply

9.2 Continuation of the Expired General

Permit

9.3 Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not

a Defense

9.4 Duty to Mitigate

9.5 Duty to Provide Information

9.6 Other Information

9.7 Signatory Requirements

9.8 Penalties for Falsification of Reports

9.9 Oil and Hazardous Substance

Liability

9.10 Property Rights

9.11 Severability

9.12 Requiring Coverage Under an

Individual Permit or an Alternative

General Permit

9.13 State/Tribal Environmental Laws

9.14 Proper Operation and Maintenance

9.15 Inspection and Entry

9.16 Monitoring and Records

9.17 Permit Actions

10. Reopener Clause

10.1 Water Quality Protection

10.2 Procedures for Modification or

Revocation

11. Transfer or Termination of Coverage

11.1 Transfer of Permit Coverage

11.2 Notice of Termination (NOT)

11.3 Addresses

11.4 Facilities Eligible for ‘‘No Exposure’’

Exemption for Storm Water Permitting

12. Definitions

13. Permit Conditions Applicable to Specific

State, Indian Country Lands, or

Territories

Addendum A—Endangered Species

Guidance

Addendum B—Historic Properties Guidance

Addendum C—New Source Environmental

Assessments

Addendum D—Notice of Intent Form

Addendum E—Notice of Termination Form

Addendum F—No Exposure Certification

Form

Note: In the Spirit of the Agency’s

‘‘Readable Regulations’’ policy, this permit

was written as much as practicable in a more

reader-friendly, plain language format that

should make it easier for people less familiar

with traditional EPA permits and regulations

to read and understand the permit

requirements. Terms like ‘‘you’’ and ‘‘your’’

are used to refer to the party(ies) that are

operators of a discharge, applicants,

permittees, etc. Terms like ‘‘must’’ are used

64802 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

instead of ‘‘shall.’’ Phrasing such as ‘‘If you.

* * * ’’ is used to identify conditions that

may not apply to all permittees.

1. Coverage Under This Permit

1.1 Permit Area

The permit language is structured as

if it were a single permit, with State,

Indian country land or other areaspecific conditions contained in Part 13.

Permit coverage is actually provided by

legally separate and distinctly

numbered permits, all of which are

contained herein, and which cover each

of the areas listed in Parts 1.1.1 through

1.1.10.

Note: EPA can only provide permit

coverage for areas and classes of discharges

not within the scope of a State’s NPDES

authorization. For discharges not described

in an area of coverage below, please contact

the appropriate State NPDES permitting

authority to obtain a permit.

1.1.1 EPA Region 1: CT, MA, ME, NH,

RI, VT

The states of Connecticut, Rhode

Island, and Vermont are the NPDES

Permitting Authority for the majority of

discharges within their respective states.

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

CTR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of Connecticut.

MAR05*### ..................................... Commonwealth of Massachusetts, except Indian country lands.

MAR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

MER05*### ..................................... State of Maine, except Indian country lands.

MER05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of Maine.

NHR05*### ..................................... State of New Hampshire.

RIR05*##I ........................................ Indian country lands within the State of Rhode Island.

VTR05*##F ..................................... Federal Facilities in the State of Vermont.

1.1.2 EPA Region 2: NJ, NY, PR, VI

The state of New York is the NPDES Permitting Authority for the majority of discharges within that state. New

Jersey and the Virgin Islands are the NPDES Permitting Authority for all discharges within their respective states.

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

PRR05*### ..................................... The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

1.1.3 EPA REGION 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV

The state of Delaware is the NPDES Permitting Authority for the majority of discharges within that state. Maryland,

Pennsylvania, and Virginia, West Virginia are the NPDES Permitting Authority for all discharges within these states.

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

DCR05*### ..................................... The District of Columbia.

DER05*##F ..................................... Federal Facilities in the State of Delaware.

1.1.4 EPA Region 4: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN

The states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina are the NPDES Permitting Authority for the majority

of discharges within their respective states. Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee are the NPDES Permitting

Authority for all discharges within their respective states.

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

ALR05*##I ....................................... Indian country lands within the State of Alabama.

FLR05*##I ....................................... Indian country lands within the State of Florida.

MSR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of Mississippi.

NCR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of North Carolina.

1.1.5 EPA Region 5: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI

Coverage Not Available.

1.1.6 EPA Region 6: AR, LA, OK, TX, NM (Except See Region 9 for Navajo Lands, and See Region 8 for Ute Mountain

Reservation Lands)

The states of Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas are the NPDES Permitting Authority for the majority of discharges

within their respective states. Arkansas is the NPDES Permitting Authority for all discharges within that state.

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

LAR05*##I ....................................... Indian country lands within the State of Louisiana.

NMR05*### ..................................... The State of New Mexico, except Indian country lands.

NMR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of New Mexico, except Navajo Reservation Lands that are covered

under Arizona permit AZR05*##I listed in Part 1.1.9 and Ute Mountain Reservation Lands that are covered under Colorado permit COR05*##I listed in Part 1.1.8.

OKR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of Oklahoma.

OKR05*##F ..................................... Facilities in the State of Oklahoma not under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality, except those on Indian country lands. EPA-jurisdiction facilities include SIC codes 1311, 1381,

1382, 1389 and 5171 and point source (but not non-point source) discharges associated with agricultural

production, services, and silviculture.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64803

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

TXR05*##F ..................................... Facilities in the State of Texas not under the jurisdiction of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, except those on Indian country lands. EPA-jurisdiction facilities include SIC codes 1311,

1321, 1381, 1382, and 1389 (other than oil field service company ‘‘home base’’ facilities).

TXR05*##I ....................................... Indian country lands within the State of Texas.

1.1.7 EPA Region 7: IA, KS, MO, NE

Coverage Not Available.

1.1.8 EPA Region 8: CO, MT, ND, SD, WY, UT (Except See Region 9 for Goshute Reservation and Navajo Reservation

Lands), the Ute Mountain Reservation in NM, and the Pine Ridge Reservation in NE

The states of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming are the NPDES Permitting Authority

for the majority of discharges within their respective states.

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

COR05*##F ..................................... Federal Facilities in the State of Colorado, except those located on Indian country lands which are covered

under Colorado permit CORO5*##I below.

COR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of Colorado, including the portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico.

MTR05*##I ...................................... Reserved.

NDR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of North Dakota, including that portion of the Standing Rock Reservation located in South Dakota except Indian country within the former boundaries of the Lake Traverse

Reservation that is covered under South Dakota permit SDR05*##I listed below.

SDR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of South Dakota, including the portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation

located in Nebraska and the portion of Indian country within the former boundaries of the Lake Traverse

Reservation located in North Dakota except for the Standing Rock Reservation that is covered under

North Dakota permit NDR05*##I listed above.

UTR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of Utah, except Goshute and Navajo Reservation lands that are covered under Arizona permit AZR05*##I (Goshute) listed in Part 1.1.9 and Nevada permit NVR05*##I

(Navajo) listed in Part 1.1.9.

WYR05*##I ..................................... Indian country lands within the State of Wyoming.

1.1.9 EPA Region 9: CA, HI, NV, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,

the Goshute Reservation in UT and NV, the Navajo Reservation in UT, NM, and AZ, the Duck Valley Reservation

in ID, and the Fort McDermitt Reservation in OR

The states of California and Nevada are the NPDES Permitting Authority for the majority of discharges within

their respective states. Hawaii is the NPDES Permitting Authority for all discharges within that state.

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

ASR05*### ..................................... The Island of American Samoa.

AZR05*### ...................................... The State of Arizona, except Indian country lands.

AZR05*##I ....................................... Indian country lands within the State of Arizona, including Navajo Reservation lands in New Mexico and

Utah.

CAR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of California.

GUR05*### ..................................... The Island of Guam.

JAR05*### ...................................... Johnston Atoll.

MWR05*### .................................... Midway Island and Wake Island.

NIR05*### ....................................... Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

NVR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of Nevada, including the Duck Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort

McDermitt Reservation in Oregon and the Goshute Reservation in Utah.

1.1.10 Region 10: AK, ID (Except See Region 9 for Duck Valley Reservation Lands), OR (Except See Region 9 for

Fort McDermitt Reservation), WA

The states of Oregon and Washington are the NPDES Permitting Authority for the majority of discharges within

their respective states. The 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit was issued in the State of Alaska on February 9, 1996

(61 FR 5247) and the terms and conditions of the 1995 permit are effective for facilities in Alaska through February

9, 2001. EPA will reissue this permit for the State of Alaska at a future date.

Permit No. Areas of coverage/where EPA is permitting authority

AKR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within Alaska.

IDR05*### ....................................... The State of Idaho, except Indian country lands.

IDR05*##I ........................................ Indian country lands within the State of Idaho, except Duck Valley Reservation lands which are covered

under Nevada permit NVR05*##I listed in Part 1.1.9.

ORR05*##I ...................................... Indian country lands within the State of Oregon except Fort McDermitt Reservation lands that are covered

under Nevada permit NVR05*##I listed in Part 1.1.9.

WAR05*##I ..................................... Indian country lands within the State of Washington.

WAR05*##F .................................... Federal Facilities in the State of Washington, except those located on Indian country lands.

64804 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

1.2 Eligibility

You must maintain permit eligibility to discharge under this permit. Any discharges that are not compliant with

the eligibility conditions of this permit are not authorized by the permit and you must either apply for a separate

permit to cover those ineligible discharges or take necessary steps to make the discharges eligible for coverage.

1.2.1 Facilities Covered

Your permit eligibility is limited to discharges from facilities in the ‘‘sectors’’ of industrial activity based on Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and Industrial Activity Codes summarized in Table 1–1. References to ‘‘sectors’’

in this permit (e.g., sector-specific monitoring requirements, etc.) refer to these sectors.

TABLE 1–1.—SECTORS OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY COVERED BY THIS PERMIT

SIC code or activity code 1 Activity represented

Sector A: Timber Products

2411 ................................................ Log Storage and Handling (Wet deck storage areas only authorized if no chemical additives are used in

the spray water or applied to the logs).

2421 ................................................ General Sawmills and Planning Mills.

2426 ................................................ Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills.

2429 ................................................ Special Product Sawmills, Not Elsewhere Classified.

2431–2439 (except 2434) ............... Millwork, Veneer, Plywood, and Structural Wood (see Sector W).

2448, 2449 ...................................... Wood Containers.

2451, 2452 ...................................... Wood Buildings and Mobile Homes.

2491 ................................................ Wood Preserving.

2493 ................................................ Reconstituted Wood Products.

2499 ................................................ Wood Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

Sector B: Paper and Allied Products

2611 ................................................ Pulp Mills.

2621 ................................................ Paper Mills.

2631 ................................................ Paperboard Mills.

2652–2657 ...................................... Paperboard Containers and Boxes.

2671–2679 ...................................... Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, Except Containers and Boxes.

Sector C: Chemical and Allied Products

2812–2819 ...................................... Industrial Inorganic Chemicals.

2821–2824 ...................................... Plastics Materials and Synthetic Resins, Synthetic Rubber, Cellulosic and Other Manmade Fibers Except

Glass.

2833–2836 ...................................... Medicinal chemicals and botanical products; pharmaceutical preparations; in vitro and in vivo diagnostic

substances; biological products, except diagnostic substances.

2841–2844 ...................................... Soaps, Detergents, and Cleaning Preparations; Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations.

2851 ................................................ Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products.

2861–2869 ...................................... Industrial Organic Chemicals.

2873–2879 ...................................... Agricultural Chemicals.

2873 ................................................ Facilities that Make Fertilizer Solely from Leather Scraps and Leather Dust.

2891–2899 ...................................... Miscellaneous Chemical Products.

3952 (limited to list) ........................ Inks and Paints, Including China Painting Enamels, India Ink, Drawing Ink, Platinum Paints for Burnt Wood

or Leather Work, Paints for China Painting, Artist’s Paints and Artist’s Watercolors.

Sector D: Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials and Lubricants

2951, 2952 ...................................... Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials.

2992, 2999 ...................................... Miscellaneous Products of Petroleum and Coal.

Sector E: Glass Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Products

3211 ................................................ Flat Glass.

3221, 3229 ...................................... Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown.

3231 ................................................ Glass Products Made of Purchased Glass.

3241 ................................................ Hydraulic Cement.

3251–3259 ...................................... Structural Clay Products.

3261–3269 ...................................... Pottery and Related Products.

3271–3275 ...................................... Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products.

3291–3299 ...................................... Abrasive, Asbestos, and Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Products.

Sector F: Primary Metals

3312–3317 ...................................... Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills.

3321–3325 ...................................... Iron and Steel Foundries.

3331–3339 ...................................... Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals.

3341 ................................................ Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals.

3351–3357 ...................................... Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Nonferrous Metals.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64805

TABLE 1–1.—SECTORS OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY COVERED BY THIS PERMIT—Continued

SIC code or activity code 1 Activity represented

3363–3369 ...................................... Nonferrous Foundries (Castings).

3398, 3399 ...................................... Miscellaneous Primary Metal Products.

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing)

1011 ................................................ Iron Ores.

1021 ................................................ Copper Ores.

1031 ................................................ Lead and Zinc Ores.

1041, 1044 ...................................... Gold and Silver Ores.

1061 ................................................ Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium.

1081 ................................................ Metal Mining Services.

1094, 1099 ...................................... Miscellaneous Metal Ores.

Sector H: Coal Mines and Coal Mining Related Facilities

1221–1241 ...................................... Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities.

Sector I: Oil and Gas Extraction and Refining

1311 ................................................ Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas.

1321 ................................................ Natural Gas Liquids.

1381–1389 ...................................... Oil and Gas Field Services.

2911 ................................................ Petroleum Refineries.

Sector J: Mineral Mining and Dressing

1411 ................................................ Dimension Stone.

1422–1429 ...................................... Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Rip Rap.

1442, 1446 ...................................... Sand and Gravel

1455, 1459 ...................................... Clay, Ceramic, and Refractory Materials.

1474–1479 ...................................... Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining.

1481 ................................................ Nonmetallic Minerals Services, Except Fuels.

1499 ................................................ Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels.

Sector K: Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities

HZ ................................................... Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal.

Sector L: Landfills and Land Application Sites

LF .................................................... Landfills, Land Application Sites, and Open Dumps.

Sector M: Automobile Salvage Yards

5015 ................................................ Automobile Salvage Yards.

Sector N: Scrap Recycling Facilities

5093 ................................................ Scrap Recycling Facilities.

Sector O: Steam Electric Generating Facilities

SE ................................................... Steam Electric Generating Facilities.

Sector P: Land Transportation and Warehousing

4011, 4013 ...................................... Railroad Transportation.

4111–4173 ...................................... Local and Highway Passenger Transportation.

4212–4231 ...................................... Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing.

4311 ................................................ United States Postal Service.

5171 ................................................ Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals.

Sector Q: Water Transportation

4412–4499 ...................................... Water Transportation.

Sector R: Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards

3731,3732 ....................................... Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards.

Sector S: Air Transportation

4512–4581 ...................................... Air Transportation Facilities.

64806 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 1–1.—SECTORS OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY COVERED BY THIS PERMIT—Continued

SIC code or activity code 1 Activity represented

Sector T: Treatment Works

TW ................................................... Treatment Works.

Sector U: Food and Kindred Products

2011–2015 ...................................... Meat Products.

2021–2026 ...................................... Dairy Products.

2032 ................................................ Canned, Frozen and Preserved Fruits, Vegetables and Food Specialties.

2041–2048 ...................................... Grain Mill Products.

2051–2053 ...................................... Bakery Products.

2061–2068 ...................................... Sugar and Confectionery Products.

2074–2079 ...................................... Fats and Oils.

2082–2087 ...................................... Beverages.

2091–2099 ...................................... Miscellaneous Food Preparations and Kindred Products.

2111–2141 ...................................... Tobacco Products.

Sector V: Textile Mills, Apparel, and Other Fabric Product Manufacturing, Leather and Leather Products

2211–2299 ...................................... Textile Mill Products.

2311–2399 ...................................... Apparel and Other Finished Products Made From Fabrics and Similar Materials.

3131–3199 (except 3111) ............... Leather and Leather Products, except Leather Tanning and Finishing (see Sector Z).

Sector W: Furniture and Fixtures

2434 ................................................ Wood Kitchen Cabinets.

2511–2599 ...................................... Furniture and Fixtures.

Sector X: Printing and Publishing

2711–2796 ...................................... Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries.

Sector Y: Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.

3011 ................................................ Tires and Inner Tubes.

3021 ................................................ Rubber and Plastics Footwear.

3052, 3053 ...................................... Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing Devices and Rubber and Plastics Hose and Belting.

3061, 3069 ...................................... Fabricated Rubber Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

3081–3089 ...................................... Miscellaneous Plastics Products.

3931 ................................................ Musical Instruments.

3942–3949 ...................................... Dolls, Toys, Games and Sporting and Athletic Goods.

3951–3955 (except 3952 facilities

as specified in Sector C).

Pens, Pencils,and Other Artists’ Materials.

3961, 3965 ...................................... Costume Jewelry, Costume Novelties, Buttons, and Miscellaneous Notions, Except Precious Metal.

3991–3999 ...................................... Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.

3411–3499 ...................................... Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment.

3911–3915 ...................................... Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Ware.

Sector AB: Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial Machinery

3511–3599 (except 3571–3579) ..... Industrial and Commercial Machinery (except Computer and Office Equipment) (see Sector AC).

3711–3799 (except 3731, 3732) ..... Transportation Equipment (except Ship and Boat Building and Repairing) (see Sector R).

Sector AC: Electronic, Electrical, Photographic, and Optical Goods

3571–3579 ...................................... Computer and Office Equipment.

3612–3699 ...................................... Electronic, Electrical Equipment and Components, except Computer Equipment.

3812 ................................................ Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instrument; Photographic and Optical Goods.

Sector AD: Non-Classified Facilities

N/A .................................................. Other storm water discharges designated by the Director as needing a permit (see 40 CFR 122.26(g)(1)(I))

or any facility discharging storm water associated with industrial activity not described by any of Sectors

A–AC. Note: Facilities may not elect to be covered under Sector AD. Only the Director may assign a facility to Sector AD.

1A complete list of SIC codes (and conversions from the newer North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)) can be obtained from

the Internet at http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html or in paper form from various locations in the document entitled ‘‘Handbook of Standard Industrial Classifications,’’ Office of Management and Budget, 1987. Industrial activity codes are provided on the Multi-Sector General Permit

Notice of Intent (NOI) application form (EPA Form Number 3510–6).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64807

1.2.1.1 Co-located Activities. If you

have co-located industrial activities onsite that are described in a sector(s)

other than your primary sector, you

must comply with all other applicable

sector-specific conditions found in Part

6 for the co-located industrial activities.

The extra sector-specific requirements

are applied only to those areas of your

facility where the extra-sector activities

occur. An activity at a facility is not

considered co-located if the activity,

when considered separately, does not

meet the description of a category of

industrial activity covered by the storm

water regulations, and identified by the

MSGP–2000 SIC code list. For example,

unless you are actually hauling

substantial amounts of freight or

materials with your own truck fleet or

are providing a trucking service to

outsiders, simple maintenance of

vehicles used at your facility is unlikely

to meet the SIC code group 42

description of a motor freight

transportation facility. Even though

Sector P may not apply, the runoff from

your vehicle maintenance facility would

likely still be considered storm water

associated with industrial activity. As

such, your SWPPP must still address the

runoff from the vehicle maintenance

facility—although not necessarily with

the same degree of detail as required by

Sector P—but you would not be

required to monitor as per Sector P.

If runoff from co-located activities

commingles, you must monitor the

discharge as per the requirements of all

applicable sectors (regardless of the

actual location of the discharge). If you

comply with all applicable requirements

from all applicable sections of Part 6 for

the co-located industrial activities, the

discharges from these co-located

activities are authorized by this permit.

1.2.2 Discharges Covered

1.2.2.1 Allowable Storm Water

Discharges. Subject to compliance with

the terms and conditions of this permit,

you are authorized to discharge

pollutants in:

1.2.2.1.1 Discharges of storm water

runoff associated with industrial

activities as defined in 40 CFR 122.26

(b)(14)(i–ix and xi) from the sectors of

industry described in Table 1–1, and

that are specifically identified by outfall

or discharge location in the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (see Part

4.2.2.3.7);

1.2.2.1.2 Non-storm water

discharges as noted in Part 1.2.2.2 or

otherwise specifically allowed by the

permit;

1.2.2.1.3 Discharges subject to an

effluent guideline listed in Table 1–2

that also meet all other eligibility

requirements of the permit. Interim

coverage is also available for discharges

subject to a new storm water effluent

limitation guideline promulgated after

the effective date of this permit.

Discharges subject to a New Source

Performance Standard (NSPS) effluent

guideline must also meet the

requirements of Part 1.2.4.;

1.2.2.1.4 Discharges designated by

the Director as needing a storm water

permit under 40 CFR 122.26(a)(1)(v) or

under 122.26(a)(9) and 122.26(g)(1)(i);

and

1.2.2.1.5 Discharges comprised of a

discharge listed in Parts 1.2.2.1.1 to

1.2.2.1.4 above commingled with a

discharge authorized by a different

NPDES permit and/or a discharge that

does not require NPDES permit

authorization.

TABLE 1–2.—EFFLUENT GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO DISCHARGES THAT MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR PERMIT COVERAGE

Effluent guideline

New source

performance

standards included in effluent guidelines?

Sectors

with affected

facilities

Runoff from material storage piles at cement manufacturing facilities [40 CFR Part 411 Subpart C (established

February 23, 1977)].

Yes ............... E

Contaminated runoff from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities [40 CFR Part 418 Subpart A (established

April 8, 1974)].

Yes ............... C

Coal pile runoff at steam electric generating facilities [40 CFR Part 423 (established November 19, 1982)] .......... Yes ............... O

Discharges resulting from spray down or intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage areas [40 CFR Part 429,

Subpart I (established January 26, 1981)].

Yes ............... A

Mine dewatering discharges at crushed stone mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart B] ............................................... No ................ J

Mine dewatering discharges at construction sand and gravel mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart C] ....................... No ................ J

Mine dewatering discharges at industrial sand mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart D] .............................................. No ................ J

Runoff from asphalt emulsion facilities [40 CFR Part 443 Subpart A (established July 24, 1975)] .......................... Yes ............... D

Runoff from landfills, [40 CFR Part 445, Subpart A and B (established February 2, 2000] ..................................... Yes ............... K & L

1.2.2.2 Allowable Non-Storm Water

Discharges. You are also authorized for

the following non-storm water

discharges, provided the non-storm

water component of your discharge is in

compliance with Part 4.4.2 (non-storm

water discharges):

1.2.2.2.1 Discharges from fire

fighting activities;

1.2.2.2.2 Fire hydrant flushings;

1.2.2.2.3 Potable water including

water line flushings;

1.2.2.2.4 Uncontaminated air

conditioning or compressor condensate;

1.2.2.2.5 Irrigation drainage;

1.2.2.2.6 Landscape watering

provided all pesticides, herbicides, and

fertilizer have been applied in

accordance with manufacturer’s

instructions;

1.2.2.2.7 Pavement wash waters

where no detergents are used and no

spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous

materials have occurred (unless all

spilled material has been removed);

1.2.2.2.8 Routine external building

wash down which does not use

detergents;

1.2.2.2.9 Uncontaminated ground

water or spring water;

1.2.2.2.10 Foundation or footing

drains where flows are not

contaminated with process materials

such as solvents;

1.2.2.2.11 Incidental windblown

mist from cooling towers that collects

on rooftops or adjacent portions of your

facility, but NOT intentional discharges

from the cooling tower (e.g., ‘‘piped’’

cooling tower blowdown or drains).

1.2.3 Limitations on Coverage

1.2.3.1 Prohibition on Discharges

Mixed with Non-Storm Water. You are

not authorized for discharges that are

mixed with sources of non-storm water.

This exclusion does not apply to

discharges identified in Part 1.2.2.2,

provided the discharges are in

compliance with Part 4.4.2 (Storm

64808 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Water Pollution Prevention Plan

requirements for authorized non-storm

water discharges), and to any discharge

explicitly authorized by the permit.

1.2.3.2 Storm Water Discharges

Associated with Construction Activity.

You are not authorized for storm water

discharges associated with construction

activity as defined in 40 CFR

122.26(b)(14)(x) or 40 CFR

122.26(b)(15).

1.2.3.3 Discharges Currently or

Previously Covered by Another Permit.

You are not authorized for the

following:

1.2.3.3.1 Storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity that

are currently covered under an

individual permit or an alternative

general permit.

1.2.3.3.2 Discharges previously

covered by an individual permit or

alternative general permit (except the

1992 ‘‘Baseline’’ or the 1995 MultiSector NPDES General Permits for

Storm Water Discharges Associated

With Industrial Activity) that has

expired, or been terminated at the

request of the permittee unless:

1.2.3.3.2.1 The individual permit

did not contain numeric water qualitybased limitations developed for the

storm water component of the

discharge; and

1.2.3.3.2.2 The permittee includes

any specific BMPs for storm water

required under the individual permit in

the SWPPP required under Part 4 of this

permit.

1.2.3.3.3 Storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity from

facilities where any NPDES permit has

been or is in the process of being

denied, terminated, or revoked by the

Director (other than in a replacement

permit issuance process). Upon request,

the Director may waive this exclusion if

operator of the facility has since passed

to a different owner/operator and new

circumstances at the facility justify a

waiver.

1.2.3.4 Discharges Subject to

Effluent Limitations Guidelines. You are

not authorized for discharges subject to

any effluent limitation guideline that is

not included in Table 1–2. For

discharges subject to a New Source

Performance Standard (NSPS) effluent

guideline identified in Table 1–2, you

must comply with Part 1.2.4 prior to

being eligible for permit coverage.

1.2.3.5 Discharge Compliance with

Water Quality Standards. You are not

authorized for storm water discharges

that the Director determines will cause,

or have reasonable potential to cause or

contribute to, violations of water quality

standards. Where such determinations

have been made, the Director may notify

you that an individual permit

application is necessary in accordance

with Part 9.12. However, the Director

may authorize your coverage under this

permit after you have included

appropriate controls and

implementation procedures designed to

bring your discharges into compliance

with water quality standards in your

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

1.2.3.6 Endangered and Threatened

Species or Critical Habitat Protection.

You are not authorized for discharges

that do not avoid unacceptable effects

on Federally listed endangered and

threatened (‘‘listed’’) species or

designated critical habitat (‘‘critical

habitat’’).

Caution: Additional endangered and

threatened species have been listed and

critical habit designated since the 1995

MSGP was issued. Even if you were

previously covered by the 1995 MSGP, you

must determine eligibility for this permit

through the processes described below and in

Addendum A. Where applicable, you may

incorporate information from your previous

endangered species analysis in your

documentation of eligibility for this permit.

1.2.3.6.1 Coverage under this permit

is available only if your storm water

discharges, allowable non-storm water

discharges, and discharge-related

activities are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any species that

are listed as endangered or threatened

(‘‘listed’’) under the ESA or result in the

adverse modification or destruction of

habitat that is designated or proposed to

be designated as critical under the ESA

(‘‘critical habitat’’). Submission of a

signed NOI will be deemed to also

constitute your certification of

eligibility.

1.2.3.6.2 ‘‘Discharge-related

activities’’ include: activities which

cause, contribute to, or result in storm

water point source pollutant discharges;

and measures to control storm water

discharges including the siting,

construction and operation of best

management practices (BMPs) to

control, reduce or prevent storm water

pollution.

1.2.3.6.3 Determining Eligibility:

You must use the most recent

Endangered and Threatened Species

County-Species List available from EPA

and the process in Addendum A (ESA

Screening Process) to determine your

eligibility PRIOR to submittal of your

NOI. As of the effective date of this

permit, the most current version of the

List is located on the EPA Office of

Water Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

owm/esalst2.htm. You must meet one or

more of the criteria in 1.2.3.6.3.1

through 1.2.3.6.3.5 below for the entire

term of coverage under the permit. You

must include a certification of eligibility

and supporting documentation on the

eligibility determination in your Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

1.2.3.6.3.1 Criteria A: No

endangered or threatened species or

critical habitat are in proximity to your

facility or the point where authorized

discharges reach the receiving water; or

1.2.3.6.3.2 Criteria B: In the course

of a separate federal action involving

your facility (e.g., EPA processing

request for an individual NPDES permit,

issuance of a CWA § 404 wetlands

dredge and fill permit, etc.), formal or

informal consultation with the Fish and

Wildlife Service and/or the National

Marine Fisheries Service (the

‘‘Services’’) under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been

concluded and that consultation:

(a) Addressed the effects of your

storm water discharges, allowable nonstorm water discharges, and dischargerelated activities on listed species and

critical habitat and

(b) The consultation resulted in either

a no jeopardy opinion or a written

concurrence by the Service on a finding

that your storm water discharges,

allowable non-storm water discharges,

and discharge-related activities are not

likely to adversely affect listed species

or critical habitat; or

1.2.3.6.3.3 Criteria C: Your activities

are authorized under section 10 of the

ESA and that authorization addresses

the effects of your storm water

discharges, allowable non-storm water

discharges, and discharge-related

activities on listed species and critical

habitat; or

1.2.3.6.3.4 Criteria D: Using best

judgement, you have evaluated the

effects of your storm water discharges,

allowable non-storm water discharges,

and discharge-related activities on listed

endangered or threatened species and

critical habitat and do not have reason

to believe listed species or critical

habitat would be adversely affected.

1.2.3.6.3.5 Criteria E: Your storm

water discharges, allowable non-storm

water discharges, and discharge-related

activities were already addressed in

another operator’s certification of

eligibility under Part 1.2.3.6.3.1 through

1.2.3.6.3.4 which included your

facility’s activities. By certifying

eligibility under this Part, you agree to

comply with any measures or controls

upon which the other operator’s

certification was based;

1.2.3.6.4 The Director may require

any permittee or applicant to provide

documentation of the permittee or

applicant’s determination of eligibility

for this permit using the procedures in

Addendum A where EPA or the Fish

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64809

1NSPS apply only to discharges from those

facilities or installations that were constructed after

the promulgation of NSPS. For example, storm

water discharges from areas where the production

of asphalt paving and roofing emulsions occurs are

subject to NSPS only if the asphalt emulsion facility

was constructed after July 24, 1975.

2The provisions specified in Part 1.2.2.3 and Part

1.2.4 related to documenting New Source reviews

are requirements of Federal programs under the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and will

not apply to such facilities in the event that

authority for the NPDES program has been assumed

by the State/Tribe agency and administration of this

permit has been transferred to the State/Tribe.

and Wildlife and/or National Marine

Fisheries Services determine that there

is a potential impact on endangered or

threatened species or a critical habitat.

1.2.3.6.5 You are not authorized to

discharge if the discharges or dischargerelated activities cause a prohibited

‘‘take’’ of endangered or threatened

species (as defined under section 3 of

the Endangered Species Act and 50 CFR

17.3), unless such takes are authorized

under sections 7 or 10 of the

Endangered Species Act.

1.2.3.6.6 You are not authorized for

any discharges where the discharges or

discharge-related activities are likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of

any species that are listed as endangered

or threatened under the ESA or result in

the adverse modification or destruction

of habitat that is designated or proposed

to be designated as critical under the

ESA.

1.2.3.6.7 The Endangered Species

Act (ESA) provisions upon which part

1.2.3.6 is based do not apply to stateissued permits. Should administration

of all or a portion of this permit be

transfer to a State as a result of that State

assuming the NPDES program pursuant

to Clean Water Act § 402(b), Part 1.2.3.6

will not apply to any new NOIs

submitted to the State after the State

assumes administration of the permit

(unless otherwise provided in the state

program authorization agreement).

Likewise, any other permit conditions

based on Part 1.2.3.6 will no longer

apply to new NOIs accepted by the

NPDES-authorized state.

1.2.3.7 Storm water Discharges and

Storm Water Discharge-Related

Activities with Unconsidered Adverse

Effects on Historic Properties. 

1.2.3.7.1 Determining Eligibility: In

order to be eligible for coverage under

this permit, you must be in compliance

with the National Historic Preservation

Act. Your discharges may be authorized

under this permit only if:

1.2.3.7.1.1 Criteria A: Your storm

water discharges, allowable non-storm

water discharges, and discharge-related

activities do not affect a property that is

listed or is eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places as

maintained by the Secretary of the

Interior; or

1.2.3.7.1.2 Criteria B: You have

obtained and are in compliance with a

written agreement with the State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

(THPO) that outlines all measures you

will undertake to mitigate or prevent

adverse effect to the historic property.

1.2.3.7.2 Addendum B of this permit

provides guidance and references to

assist you with determining your permit

eligibility concerning this provision.

1.2.3.8 Discharges to Water QualityImpaired or Water Quality-Limited

Receiving Waters. 

1.2.3.8.1 You are not authorized to

discharge if your discharge is prohibited

under 40 CFR 122.4(i).

1.2.3.8.2 You are not authorized to

discharge any pollutant into any water

for which a Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) has been either established or

approved by the EPA unless your

discharge is consistent with that TMDL.

1.2.3.9 Storm Water Discharges

Subject to Anti-degradation Water

Quality Standards. You are not

authorized for discharges that do not

comply with your State or Tribe’s antidegradation policy for water quality

standards. State and Tribal antidegradation policies can be obtained

from the appropriate State or Tribal

environmental office or their Internet

sites.

1.2.4 Discharges Subject to New

Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)1 2

1.2.4.1 Documentation of New

Source Review. If you have a

discharge(s) subject to a NSPS effluent

guideline, you must obtain and retain

the following on site prior to the

submittal of your Notice of Intent:

1.2.4.1.1 Documentation from EPA

of ‘‘No Significant Impact’’ or

1.2.4.1.2 A completed

Environmental Impact Statement in

accordance with an environmental

review conducted by EPA pursuant to

40 CFR 6.102(a)(6).

1.2.4.2 Initiating a New Source

Review. If the Agency’s decision has not

been obtained, you may use the format

and procedures specified in Addendum

C to submit information to EPA to

initiate the process of the environmental

review.

To maintain eligibility, you must

implement any mitigation required of

the facility as a result of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

review process. Failure to implement

mitigation measures upon which the

Agency’s NEPA finding is based is

grounds for termination of permit

coverage.

1.2.4.3 NEPA Requirements after

State Assumption of this Permit. The

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) provisions upon which part

1.2.4 is based do not apply to stateissued permits. Should administration

of all or a portion of this permit be

transfer to a State as a result of that State

assuming the NPDES program pursuant

to Clean Water Act § 402(b), Part 1.2.4

will not apply to any new NOIs

submitted to the State after the State

assumes administration of the permit.

Likewise, any other permit conditions

based on Part 1.2.4 will no longer apply

to new NOIs accepted by the NPDESauthorized state.

1.3 How To Obtain Authorization

Under This Permit

1.3.1 Basic Eligibility

You may be authorized under this

permit only if you have a discharge of

storm water associated with industrial

activity from your facility. In order to

obtain authorization under this permit,

you must:

1.3.1.1 Meet the Part 1.2 eligibility

requirements; and

1.3.1.2 Develop and implement a

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) (see definition in Part 12)

according to the requirements in Part 4

of this permit.

1.3.1.3 Submit a complete Notice of

Intent (NOI) in accordance with the

requirements of Part 2 of this permit.

Any new operator at a facility, including

those who replace an operator who has

previously obtained permit coverage,

must submit an NOI to be covered for

discharges for which they are the

operator.

1.3.2 Effective Date of Permit

Coverage

Unless notified by the Director to the

contrary, if you submit a correctly

completed NOI in accordance with the

requirements of this permit, you are

authorized to discharge under the terms

and conditions of this permit two (2)

days after the date the NOI is

postmarked (but in no event, earlier

than the effective date of the permit).

The Director may deny coverage under

this permit and require submission of an

application for an individual NPDES

permit based on a review of your NOI

or other information (see Part 9.12).

Authorization to discharge is not

automatically granted two days after the

NOI is mailed if your NOI is materially

incomplete (e.g., critical information left

off, NOI unsigned, etc.) or if your

discharge(s) is not eligible for coverage

by the permit.

64810 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

1.4 Terminating Coverage

1.4.1 Submitting a Notice of

Termination

If you wish to terminate coverage

under this permit, you must submit a

Notice of Termination (NOT) in

accordance with Part 11 of this permit.

You must continue to comply with this

permit until you submit an NOT. Your

authorization to discharge under the

permit terminates at midnight of the day

the NOT is signed.

1.4.2 When to Submit an NOT

You must submit an NOT within

thirty (30) days after one or more of the

following conditions have been met:

1.4.2.1 A new owner/operator has

assumed responsibility for the facility

1.4.2.2 You have ceased operations

at the facility and there no longer are

discharges of storm water associated

with industrial activity from the facility

and you have already implemented

necessary sediment and erosion controls

as required by Part 4.2.7.2.2.1

1.4.3 Discharges After the NOT Is

Submitted

Enforcement actions may be taken if

you submit an NOT without meeting

one or more of these conditions, unless

you have obtained coverage under an

alternate permit or have satisfied the

requirements of Part 1.5.

1.5 Conditional Exclusion for No

Exposure

If you are covered by this permit, but

later are able to file a ‘‘no exposure’’

certification to be excluded from

permitting under 40 CFR 122.26(g), you

are no longer authorized by nor required

to comply with this permit. If you are

no longer required to have permit

coverage due to a ‘‘no exposure’’

exclusion, you are not required to

submit a Notice of Termination.

2. Notice of Intent Requirements

2.1 Notice of Intent (NOI) Deadlines

Your NOI must be submitted in

accordance with the deadlines in Table

2–1. You must meet all applicable

eligibility conditions of Part 1.2 before

you submit your NOI.

TABLE 2.–1—DEADLINES FOR NOI

SUBMITTAL

Category Deadline

1. Existing discharges

covered under the

1995 MSGP (see

also Part 2.1.2—Interim Coverage).

December 29, 2000.

TABLE 2.–1—DEADLINES FOR NOI

SUBMITTAL—Continued

Category Deadline

2. New discharges .... Two (2) days prior to

commencing operation of the facility

with discharges of

storm water associated with industrial

activity.

3. New owner/operator of existing discharges.Two (2) days prior to

taking operational

control of the facility.

4. Continued coverage when the

permit expires in

2005.

See Part 9.2

Only one NOI need be submitted to

cover all of your activities at the facility

(e.g., you do not need to submit a

separate NOI for each separate type of

industrial activity located at a facility or

industrial complex, provided your

SWPPP covers each area for which you

are an operator).

2.1.1 Submitting a Late NOI

You are not prohibited from

submitting an NOI after the dates

provided in Table 2–1. If a late NOI is

submitted, your authorization is only for

discharges that occur after permit

coverage is granted. The Agency

reserves the right to take appropriate

enforcement actions for any

unpermitted discharges.

2.1.2 Interim Permit Coverage for

1995 MSGP Permittees

If you had coverage for your facility

under the 1995 MSGP, you may be

eligible for continued coverage under

this permit on an interim basis.

2.1.2.1 Discharges Authorized Under

the 1995 MSGP. If permit coverage for

your facility under the 1995 MSGP was

effective as of the date the 1995 MSGP

expired (or the date this permit replaced

the 1995 MSGP if earlier), your

authorization is automatically

continued into this replacement permit

on an interim basis for up to ninety (90)

days from the effective date of the

permit. Interim coverage will terminate

earlier than the 90 days when an NOI

has been submitted and coverage either

granted or denied; or after submittal of

an NOT.

2.1.2.2 Discharges Authorized Under

the 1995 MSGP, But Not Clearly Eligible

for Coverage Under This Permit. If you

were previously covered by the 1995

MSGP, but cannot meet (or cannot

immediately determine if you meet) the

eligibility requirements of this permit,

you may nonetheless be authorized

under this permit for a period not to

exceed 270 days from the date this

permit is published in the Federal

Register, provided you submit an

application for an alternative permit

within 90 days from the permit

publication date.

2.1.2.3 Interim Coverage Permit

Requirements. While you are operating

under interim coverage status, you

must:

2.1.2.3.1 Submit a complete NOI

(see Part 2.2) by the deadlines listed in

Table 2–1 or Part 2.1.2.2 above.

2.1.2.3.2 Comply with the terms and

conditions of the 1995 MSGP.

2.1.2.3.3 Update your Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan to comply

with the requirements of this permit

within 90 days after the effective date of

this permit.

2.2 Contents of Notice of Intent (NOI)

Your NOI for coverage under this

permit must include the following

information:

2.2.1 Permit Selection

2.2.1.1 If you were covered under

the previous MSGP, provide the permit

number assigned to your facility.

2.2.2 Owner/Operator Information

2.2.2.1 The name, address, and

telephone number of the operator (e.g.,

your company, etc.) filing the NOI for

permit coverage;

2.2.3 Facility Information

2.2.3.1 The name (or other

identifier), address, county, and

latitude/longitude of the facility for

which the NOI is submitted;

2.2.3.2 An indication of whether you

are a Federal, State, Tribal, private, or

other public entity;

2.2.3.3 An indication of whether the

facility is located on Indian country

lands;

2.2.3.4 Certification that a Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) meeting the requirements of

Part 4 has been developed (including

attaching a copy of this permit to the

plan;

2.2.3.5 The name of the receiving

water(s);

2.2.3.6 The name of the municipal

operator if the discharge is through a

municipal separate storm sewer system,

unless you are the owner/operator of

that municipal separate storm sewer

system;

2.2.3.7 Identification of applicable

sector(s) in this permit, as designated in

Table 1–1, that cover the discharges

associated with industrial activity you

wish to cover under this permit;

2.2.3.8 Up to four 4-digit Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64811

the 2-letter Activity Codes for hazardous

waste treatment, storage, or disposal

activities (HZ); land/disposal facilities

that receive or have received any

industrial waste (LF); steam electric

power generating facilities (SE); or

treatment works treating domestic

sewage (TW) that best represent the

principal products produced or services

rendered by your facility and major colocated activities;

2.2.4 Eligibility Screening

2.2.4.1 Based on the instructions in

Addendum A, whether any listed or

proposed threatened or endangered

species, or designated critical habitat,

are in proximity to the storm water

discharges or storm water dischargerelated activities to be covered by this

permit;

2.2.4.2 Whether any historic

property listed or eligible for listing on

the National Register of Historic Places

is located on the facility or in proximity

to the discharge;

2.2.4.3 A signed and dated

certification, signed by a authorized

representative of your facility and

maintained with your SWPPP, as

detailed in Part 9.7 that certifies the

following:

‘‘I certify under penalty of law that I have

read and understand the Part 1.2 eligibility

requirements for coverage under the multisector storm water general permit including

those requirements relating to the protection

of endangered or threatened species or

critical habitat. To the best of my knowledge,

the storm water and allowable non-storm

discharges authorized by this permit (and

discharged related activities), pose no

jeopardy to endangered or threatened species

or critical habitat, or are otherwise eligible

for coverage under Part 1.2.3.6 of the permit.

To the best of my knowledge, I further certify

that such discharges and discharge related

activities do not have an effect on properties

listed or eligible for listing on the National

Register or Historic Places under the National

Historic Preservation Act, or are otherwise

eligible for coverage under Part 1.2.3.7 of the

permit. I understand that continued coverage

under the multi-sector storm water general

permit is contingent upon maintaining

eligibility as provided for in Part 1.2’’

2.3 Use of NOI Form

You must submit the information

required under Part 2.2 on the latest

version of the NOI form (or photocopy

thereof) contained in Addendum D.

Your NOI must be signed and dated in

accordance with Part 9.7 of this permit.

Note: If EPA notifies dischargers (either

directly, by public notice, or by making

information available on the Internet) of

other NOI form options that become available

at a later date (e.g., electronic submission of

forms), you may take advantage of those

options to satisfy the NOI use and submittal

requirements of Part 2.

2.4 Where To Submit

Your NOI must be signed in

accordance with Part 9.7 of this permit

and submitted to the Director of the

NPDES Permitting Program at the

following address: Storm Water Notice

of Intent (4203), US EPA, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,

DC 20460.

2.5 Additional Notification

If your facility discharges through a

large or medium municipal separate

storm sewer system (MS4), or into a

MS4 that has been designated by the

permitting authority, you must also

submit a signed copy of the NOI to the

operator of that MS4 upon request by

the MS4 operator.

3. Special Conditions

3.1 Hazardous Substances or Oil

You must prevent or minimize the

discharge of hazardous substances or oil

in your discharge(s) in accordance with

the Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan for your facility. This permit does

not relieve you of the reporting

requirements of 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117

and 40 CFR 302 relating to spills or

other releases of oils or hazardous

substances.

3.1.1 Single Releases and Spills

Where a release containing a

hazardous substance or oil in an amount

equal to or in excess of a reportable

quantity established under either 40

CFR 110, 40 CFR 117 or 40 CFR 302,

occurs during a 24 hour period:

3.1.1.1 You must notify the National

Response Center (NRC) (800–424–8802;

in the Washington, DC, metropolitan

area call 202–426–2675) in accordance

with the requirements of 40 CFR 110, 40

CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 as soon as he

or she has knowledge of the discharge;

3.1.1.2 You must modify your Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan

required under Part 4 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, you must review your plan to

identify measures to prevent the

reoccurrence of such releases and to

respond to such releases, and you must

modify your plan where appropriate.

3.1.2 Anticipated Discharges

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. If your facilities has

(or will have) more than one anticipated

discharge per year containing a

hazardous substance in an amount equal

to or in excess of a reportable quantity,

you must:

3.1.2.1 Submit notifications of the

first release that occurs during a

calendar year (or for the first year of this

permit, after submittal of an NOI); and

3.1.2.2 Provide a written description

in the SWPPP of the dates on which

such releases occurred, the type and

estimate of the amount of material

released, and the circumstances leading

to the releases. In addition, your SWPPP

must address measures to minimize

such releases.

3.1.2.3 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 the

MSGP and you must report the

discharge as required under 40 CFR Part

110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part

302 (see Part 3.1.1. above). 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.

3.2 Additional Requirements for Salt

Storage

If you have storage piles of salt used

for deicing or other commercial or

industrial purposes, they must be

enclosed or covered to prevent exposure

to precipitation (except for exposure

resulting from adding or removing

materials from the pile). Piles do not

need to be enclosed or covered where

storm water from the pile is not

discharged to waters of the United

States or the discharges from the piles

are authorized under another permit.

3.3 Discharge Compliance With Water

Quality Standards

Your discharges must not be causing

or have the reasonable potential to cause

or contribute to a violation of a water

quality standard. Where a discharge is

already authorized under this permit

and is later determined to cause or have

the reasonable potential to cause or

contribute to the violation of an

applicable water quality standard, the

Director will notify you of such

violation(s). You must take all necessary

actions to ensure future discharges do

not cause or contribute to the violation

of a water quality standard and

document these actions in the Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan. If

violations remain or re-occur, then

coverage under this permit may be

terminated by the Director, and an

alternative general permit or individual

permit may be issued. Compliance with

64812 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

this requirement does not preclude any

enforcement activity as provided by the

Clean Water Act for the underlying

violation.

4. Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plans

4.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan Requirements

You must prepare a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for

your facility before submitting your

Notice of Intent for permit coverage.

Your SWPPP must be prepared in

accordance with good engineering

practices. Use of a registered

professional engineer for SWPPP

preparation is not required by the

permit, but may be independently

required under state law and/or local

ordinance. Your SWPPP must:

4.1.1 Identify potential sources of

pollution which may reasonably be

expected to affect the quality of storm

water discharges from your facility;

4.1.2 Describe and ensure

implementation of practices which you

will use to reduce the pollutants in

storm water discharges from the facility;

and

4.1.3 assure compliance with the

terms and conditions of this permit.

Note: At larger installations such as

military bases where there are well-defined

industrial versus non-industrial areas, the

SWPPP required under this Part need only

address those areas with discharges of storm

water associated with industrial activity. (e.g.,

under this permit, a U.S. Air Force Base

would need to address the vehicle

maintenance areas associated with the

‘‘airport’’ portion of the base in the SWPPP,

but would not need to address a car wash

that served only the on-base housing areas.)

4.2 Contents of Plan

4.24.2.1 Pollution Prevention Team

You must identify the staff

individual(s) (by name or title) that

comprise the facility’s storm water

Pollution Prevention Team. Your

Pollution Prevention Team is

responsible for assisting the facility/

plant manager in developing,

implementing, maintaining and revising

the facility’s SWPPP. Responsibilities of

each staff individual on the team must

be listed.

4.2.2 Site Description

Your SWPPP must include the

following:

4.2.2.1 Activities at Facility.

description of the nature of the

industrial activity(ies) at your facility;

4.2.2.2 General Location Map. a

general location map (e.g., U.S.G.S.

quadrangle, or other map) with enough

detail to identify the location of your

facility and the receiving waters within

one mile of the facility;

4.2.2.3 A legible site map identifying

the following:

4.2.2.3.1 Directions of storm water

flow (e.g, use arrows to show which

ways storm water will flow);

4.2.2.3.2 Locations of all existing

structural BMPs;

4.2.2.3.3 Locations of all surface

water bodies;

4.2.2.3.4 Locations of potential

pollutant sources identified under 4.2.4

and where significant materials are

exposed to precipitation;

4.2.2.3.5 Locations where major

spills or leaks identified under 4.2.5

have occurred;

4.2.2.3.6 Locations of the following

activities where such activities are

exposed to precipitation: fueling

stations, vehicle and equipment

maintenance and/or cleaning areas,

loading/unloading areas, locations used

for the treatment, storage or disposal of

wastes, and liquid storage tanks;

4.2.2.3.7 Locations of storm water

outfalls and an approximate outline of

the area draining to each outfall;

4.2.2.3.8 Location and description of

non-storm water discharges;

4.2.2.3.9 Locations of the following

activities where such activities are

exposed to precipitation: processing and

storage areas; access roads, rail cars and

tracks; the location of transfer of

substance in bulk; and machinery;

4.2.2.3.10 Location and source of

runoff from adjacent property

containing significant quantities of

pollutants of concern to the facility (an

evaluation of how the quality of the

storm water running onto your facility

impacts your storm water discharges

may be included).

4.2.3 Receiving Waters and Wetlands

You must provide the name of the

nearest receiving water(s), including

intermittent streams, dry sloughs,

arroyos and the areal extent and

description of wetland or other ‘‘special

aquatic sites ‘‘ (see Part 12 for

definition) that may receive discharges

from your facility.

4.2.4 Summary of Potential Pollutant

Sources

You must identify each separate area

at your facility where industrial

materials or activities are exposed to

storm water. Industrial materials or

activities include, but are not limited to,

material handling equipment or

activities, industrial machinery, raw

materials, intermediate products, byproducts, final products, or waste

products. Material handling activities

include the storage, loading and

unloading, transportation, or

conveyance of any raw material,

intermediate product, final product or

waste product. For each, separate area

identified, the description must include:

4.2.4.1 Activities in Area. A list of

the activities (e.g., material storage,

equipment fueling and cleaning, cutting

steel beams); and

4.2.4.2 Pollutants. A list of the

associated pollutant(s) or pollutant

parameter(s) (e.g., crankcase oil, iron,

biochemical oxygen demand, pH, etc.)

for each activity. The pollutant list must

include all significant materials that

have been handled, treated, stored or

disposed in a manner to allow exposure

to storm water between the time of three

(3) years before being covered under this

permit and the present.

4.2.5 Spills and Leaks

You must clearly identify areas where

potential spills and leaks, which can

contribute pollutants to storm water

discharges, can occur, and their

accompanying drainage points. For

areas that are exposed to precipitation

or that otherwise drain to a storm water

conveyance at the facility to be covered

under this permit, you must provide a

list of significant spills and leaks of

toxic or hazardous pollutants that

occurred during the three (3) year

period prior to the date of the

submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI)

. Your list must be updated if significant

spills or leaks occur in exposed areas of

your facility during the time you are

covered by the permit.

Significant spills and leaks include,

but are not limited to releases of oil or

hazardous substances in excess of

quantities that are reportable under

CWA § 311 (see 40 CFR 110.10 and 40

CFR 117.21) or section 102 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA). Significant spills may

also include releases of oil or hazardous

substances that are not in excess of

reporting requirements.

4.2.6 Sampling Data

You must provide a summary of

existing storm water discharge sampling

data taken at your facility. All storm

water sampling data collected during

the term of this permit must also be

summarized and included in this part of

the SWPPP.

4.2.7 Storm Water Controls

4.2.7.1 Description of Existing and

Planned BMPs. Describe the type and

location of existing non-structural and

structural best management practices

(BMPs) selected for each of the areas

where industrial materials or activities

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64813

are exposed to storm water. All the areas

identified in Part 4.2.4 should have a

BMP(s) identified for the area’s

discharges. For areas where BMPs are

not currently in place, describe

appropriate BMPs that you will use to

control pollutants in storm water

discharges. Selection of BMPs should

take into consideration:

4.2.7.1.1 The quantity and nature of

the pollutants, and their potential to

impact the water quality of receiving

waters;

4.2.7.1.2 Opportunities to combine

the dual purposes of water quality

protection and local flood control

benefits (including physical impacts of

high flows on streams—e.g., bank

erosion, impairment of aquatic habitat,

etc.);

4.2.7.1.3 Opportunities to offset the

impact of impervious areas of the

facility on ground water recharge and

base flows in local streams (taking into

account the potential for ground water

contamination—See ‘‘User’s Guide to

the MSGP–2000’’ section on

groundwater considerations).

4.2.7.2 BMP Types to be Considered.

The following types of structural, nonstructural and other BMPs must be

considered for implementation at your

facility. Describe how each is, or will be,

implemented. This requirement may

have been fulfilled with the areaspecific BMPs identified under Part

4.2.7.2, in which case the previous

description is sufficient. However, many

of the following BMPs may be more

generalized or non site-specific and

therefore not previously considered. If

you determine that any of these BMPs

are not appropriate for your facility, you

must include an explanation of why

they are not appropriate. The BMP

examples listed below are not intended

to be an exclusive list of BMPs that you

may use. You are encouraged to keep

abreast of new BMPs or new

applications of existing BMPs to find

the most cost effective means of permit

compliance for your facility. If BMPs are

being used or planned at the facility

which are not listed here (e.g., replacing

a chemical with a less toxic alternative,

adopting a new or innovative BMP,

etc.), include descriptions of them in

this section of the SWPPP.

4.2.7.2.1 Non-Structural BMPs.

4.2.7.2.1.1 Good Housekeeping: You

must keep all exposed areas of the

facility in a clean, orderly manner

where such exposed areas could

contribute pollutants to storm water

discharges. Common problem areas

include: around trash containers,

storage areas and loading docks.

Measures must also include: a schedule

for regular pickup and disposal of

garbage and waste materials; routine

inspections for leaks and conditions of

drums, tanks and containers.

4.2.7.2.1.2 Minimizing Exposure:

Where practicable, industrial materials

and activities should be protected by a

storm resistant shelter to prevent

exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt, or

runoff.

Note: Eliminating exposure at all industrial

areas may make the facility eligible for the 40

CFR 122.26(g) ‘‘No Exposure’’ exclusion from

needing to have a permit.

4.2.7.2.1.3 Preventive Maintenance:

You must have a preventive

maintenance program which includes

timely inspection and maintenance of

storm water management devices, (e.g.,

cleaning oil/water separators, catch

basins) as well as inspecting, testing,

maintaining and repairing facility

equipment and systems to avoid

breakdowns or failures that may result

in discharges of pollutants to surface

waters.

4.2.7.2.1.4 Spill Prevention and

Response Procedures: You must

describe the procedures which will be

followed for cleaning up spills or leaks.

Those procedures, and necessary spill

response equipment, must be made

available to those employees that may

cause or detect a spill or leak. Where

appropriate, you must explain existing

or planned material handling

procedures, storage requirements,

secondary containment, and equipment

(e.g., diversion valves), which are

intended to minimize spills or leaks at

the facility. Measures for cleaning up

hazardous material spills or leaks must

be consistent with applicable RCRA

regulations at 40 CFR Part 264 and 40

CFR Part 265.

4.2.7.2.1.5 Routine Facility

Inspections: In addition to or as part of

the comprehensive site evaluation

required under Part 4.9, you must have

qualified facility personnel inspect all

areas of the facility where industrial

materials or activities are exposed to

storm water. The inspections must

include an evaluation of existing storm

water BMPs. Your SWPPP must identify

how often these inspections will be

conducted. You must correct any

deficiencies in implementation of your

SWP3 you find as soon as practicable,

but not later than within 14 days of the

inspection. You must document in your

SWPPP the results of your inspections

and the corrective actions you took in

response to any deficiencies or

opportunities for improvement that you

identify.

4.2.7.2.1.6 Employee Training: You

must describe the storm water employee

training program for the facility. The

description should include the topics to

be covered, such as spill response, good

housekeeping and material management

practices, and must identify periodic

dates (e.g., every 6 months during the

months of July and January) for such

training. You must provide employee

training for all employees that work in

areas where industrial materials or

activities are exposed to storm water,

and for employees that are responsible

for implementing activities identified in

the SWPPP (e.g., inspectors,

maintenance people). The employee

training should inform them of the

components and goals of your SWPPP.

4.2.7.2.2 Structural BMPs.

4.2.7.2.2.1 Sediment and Erosion

Control: You must identify the areas at

your facility which, due to topography,

land disturbance (e.g., construction), or

other factors, have a potential for

significant soil erosion. You must

describe the structural, vegetative, and/

or stabilization BMPs that you will be

implementing to limit erosion.

4.2.7.2.2.2 Management of Runoff:

You must describe the traditional storm

water management practices (permanent

structural BMPs other than those which

control the generation or source(s) of

pollutants) that currently exist or that

are planned for your facility. These

types of BMPs typically are used to

divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise

reduce pollutants in storm water

discharges from the site. All BMPs that

you determine are reasonable and

appropriate, or are required by a State

or local authority; or are necessary to

maintain eligibility for the permit (see

Part 1.2.3—Limitations on Coverage)

must be implemented and maintained.

Factors to consider when you are

selecting appropriate BMPs should

include: (1) The industrial materials and

activities that are exposed to storm

water, and the associated pollutant

potential of those materials and

activities; and (2) the beneficial and

potential detrimental effects on surface

water quality, ground water quality,

receiving water base flow (dry weather

stream flow), and physical integrity of

receiving waters. (See ‘‘User’s Guide to

the MSGP–2000’’ for Considerations in

Selection of BMPs) Structural measures

should be placed on upland soils,

avoiding wetlands and floodplains, if

possible. Structural BMPs may require a

separate permit under section 404 of the

CWA before installation begins.

4.2.7.2.2.3 Example BMPs: BMPs

you could use include but are not

limited to: storm water detention

structures (including wet ponds); storm

water retention structures; flow

attenuation by use of open vegetated

swales and natural depressions;

64814 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

infiltration of runoff onsite; and

sequential systems (which combine

several practices).

4.2.7.2.3 Other Controls. No solid

materials, including floatable debris,

may be discharged to waters of the

United States, except as authorized by a

permit issued under section 404 of the

CWA. Off-site vehicle tracking of raw,

final, or waste materials or sediments,

and the generation of dust must be

minimized. Tracking or blowing of raw,

final, or waste materials from areas of no

exposure to exposed areas must be

minimized. Velocity dissipation devices

must be placed at discharge locations

and along the length of any outfall

channel if they are necessary to provide

a non-erosive flow velocity from the

structure to a water course.

4.3 Maintenance

All BMPs you identify in your SWPPP

must be maintained in effective

operating condition. If site inspections

required by Part 4.9 identify BMPs that

are not operating effectively,

maintenance must be performed before

the next anticipated storm event, or as

necessary to maintain the continued

effectiveness of storm water controls. If

maintenance prior to the next

anticipated storm event is

impracticable, maintenance must be

scheduled and accomplished as soon as

practicable. In the case of non-structural

BMPs, the effectiveness of the BMP

must be maintained by appropriate

means (e.g., spill response supplies

available and personnel trained, etc.).

4.4 Non-Storm Water Discharges

4.4.1 Certification of Non-Storm

Water Discharges

4.4.1.1 Your SWPPP must include a

certification that all discharges (i.e.,

outfalls) have been tested or evaluated

for the presence of non-storm water. The

certification must be signed in

accordance with Part 9.7 of this permit,

and include:

4.4.1.1.1 The date of any testing

and/or evaluation;

4.4.1.1.2 Identification of potential

significant sources of non-storm water at

the site;

4.4.1.1.3 A description of the results

of any test and/or evaluation for the

presence of non-storm water discharges;

4.4.1.1.4 A description of the

evaluation criteria or testing method

used; and

4.4.1.1.5 A list of the outfalls or

onsite drainage points that were directly

observed during the test.

4.4.1.2 You do not need to sign a

new certification if one was already

completed for either the 1992 baseline

Industrial General Permit or the 1995

Multi-sector General Permit and you

have no reason to believe conditions at

the facility have changed.

4.4.1.3 If you are unable to provide

the certification required (testing for

non-storm water discharges), you must

notify the Director 180 days after

submitting an NOI to be covered by this

permit. If the failure to certify is caused

by the inability to perform adequate

tests or evaluations, such notification

must describe:

4.4.1.3.1 Reason(s) why certification

was not possible;

4.4.1.3.2 The procedure of any test

attempted;

4.4.1.3.3 The results of such test or

other relevant observations; and

4.4.1.3.4 Potential sources of nonstorm water discharges to the storm

sewer.

4.4.1.4 A Copy of the notification

must be included in the SWPPP at the

facility. Non-storm water discharges to

waters of the United States which are

not authorized by an NPDES permit are

unlawful, and must be terminated.

4.4.2 Allowable Non-Storm Water

Discharges

4.4.2.1 Certain sources of non-storm

water are allowable under this permit

(see 1.2.2.2—Allowable Non-Storm

Water Discharges). In order for these

discharges to be allowed, your SWPPP

must include:

4.4.2.1.1 Identification of each

allowable non-storm water source;

4.4.2.1.2 The location where it is

likely to be discharged; and

4.4.2.1.3 Descriptions of appropriate

BMPs for each source.

4.4.2.2 Except for flows from fire

fighting activities, you must identify in

your SWPPP all sources of allowable

non-storm water that are discharged

under the authority of this permit.

4.4.2.3 If you include mist blown

from cooling towers amongst your

allowable non-storm water discharges,

you must specifically evaluate the

potential for the discharges to be

contaminated by chemicals used in the

cooling tower and determined that the

levels of such chemicals in the

discharges would not cause or

contribute to a violation of an applicable

water quality standard after

implementation of the BMPs you have

selected to control such discharges.

4.5 Documentation of Permit

Eligibility Related to Endangered

Species

Your SWPPP must include

documentation supporting your

determination of permit eligibility with

regard to Part 1.2.3.6 (Endangered

Species), including:

4.5.1 Information on whether listed

endangered or threatened species, or

critical habitat, are found in proximity

to your facility;

4.5.2 Whether such species may be

affected by your storm water discharges

or storm water discharge-related

activities;

4.5.3 Results of your Addendum A

endangered species screening

determinations; and

4.5.4 A description of measures

necessary to protect listed endangered

or threatened species, or critical habitat,

including any terms or conditions that

are imposed under the eligibility

requirements of Part 1.2.3.6. If you fail

to describe and implement such

measures, your discharges are ineligible

for coverage under this permit.

4.6 Documentation of Permit

Eligibility Related to Historic Places

Your SWPPP must include

documentation supporting your

determination of permit eligibility with

regard to Part 1.2.3.7 (Historic Places),

including:

4.6.1 Information on whether your

storm water discharges or storm water

discharge-related activities would have

an effect on a property that is listed or

eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places;

4.6.2 Where effects may occur, any

written agreements you have made with

the State Historic Preservation Officer,

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, or

other Tribal leader to mitigate those

effects;

4.6.3 Results of your Addendum B

historic places screening

determinations; and

4.6.4 Description of measures

necessary to avoid or minimize adverse

impacts on places listed, or eligible for

listing, on the National Register of

Historic Places, including any terms or

conditions that are imposed under the

eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.7 of

this permit. If you fail to describe and

implement such measures, your

discharges are ineligible for coverage

under this permit.

4.7 Copy of Permit Requirements

You must include a copy of this

permit in your SWPPP.

Note: The confirmation of coverage letter

you receive from the NOI Processing Center

assigning your permit number IS NOT your

permit—it merely acknowledges that your

NOI has been accepted and you have been

authorized to discharge subject to the terms

and conditions of today’s permit.

4.8 Applicable State, Tribal or Local

Plans

Your SWPPP must be consistent (and

updated as necessary to remain

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64815

consistent) with applicable State, Tribal

and/or local storm water, waste

disposal, sanitary sewer or septic system

regulations to the extent these apply to

your facility and are more stringent than

the requirements of this permit.

4.9 Comprehensive Site Compliance

Evaluation

4.9.1 Frequency and Inspectors

You must conduct facility inspections

at least once a year. The inspections

must be done by qualified personnel

provided by you. The qualified

personnel you use may be either your

own employees or outside consultants

that you have hired, provided they are

knowledgeable and possess the skills to

assess conditions at your facility that

could impact storm water quality and

assess the effectiveness of the BMPs you

have chosen to use to control the quality

of your storm water discharges. If you

decide to conduct more frequent

inspections, your SWPPP must specify

the frequency of inspections.

4.9.2 Scope of the Compliance

Evaluation

Your inspections must include all

areas where industrial materials or

activities are exposed to storm water, as

identified in 4.2.4, and areas where

spills and leaks have occurred within

the past 3 years. Inspectors should look

for: (a) Industrial materials, residue or

trash on the ground that could

contaminate or be washed away in

storm water; (b) leaks or spills from

industrial equipment, drums, barrels,

tanks or similar containers; (c) offsite

tracking of industrial materials or

sediment where vehicles enter or exit

the site; (d) tracking or blowing of raw,

final, or waste materials from areas of no

exposure to exposed areas and (e) for

evidence of, or the potential for,

pollutants entering the drainage system.

Results of both visual and any analytical

monitoring done during the year must

be taken into consideration during the

evaluation. Storm water BMPs

identified in your SWPPP must be

observed to ensure that they are

operating correctly. Where discharge

locations or points are accessible, they

must be inspected to see whether BMPs

are effective in preventing significant

impacts to receiving waters. Where

discharge locations are inaccessible,

nearby downstream locations must be

inspected if possible.

4.9.3 Follow-Up Actions

Based on the results of the inspection,

you must modify your SWPPP as

necessary (e.g., show additional controls

on map required by Part 4.2.2.3; revise

description of controls required by Part

4.2.7 to include additional or modified

BMPs designed to correct problems

identified. You must complete revisions

to the SWPPP within 14 calendar days

following the inspection. If existing

BMPs need to be modified or if

additional BMPs are necessary,

implementation must be completed

before the next anticipated storm event,

if practicable, but not more than twelve

(12) weeks after completion of the

comprehensive site evaluation.

4.9.4 Compliance Evaluation Report

You must insure a report

summarizing the scope of the

inspection, name(s) of personnel making

the inspection, the date(s) of the

inspection, and major observations

relating to the implementation of the

SWPPP is completed and retained as

part of the SWPPP for at least three

years from the date permit coverage

expires or is terminated. Major

observations should include: the

location(s) of discharges of pollutants

from the site; location(s) of BMPs that

need to be maintained; location(s) of

BMPs that failed to operate as designed

or proved inadequate for a particular

location; and location(s) where

additional BMPs are needed that did not

exist at the time of inspection. You must

retain a record of actions taken in

accordance with Part 4.9 of this permit

as part of the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan for at least three years

from the date that permit coverage

expires or is terminated. The inspection

reports must identify any incidents of

non-compliance. Where an inspection

report does not identify any incidents of

non-compliance, the report must

contain a certification that the facility is

in compliance with the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan and this

permit. Both the inspection report and

any reports of follow-up actions must be

signed in accordance with Part 9.7

(reporting) of this permit.

4.9.5 Credit As a Routine Facility

Inspection

Where compliance evaluation

schedules overlap with inspections

required under Part 4.2.7.2.1.5, your

annual compliance evaluation may also

be used as one of the Part 4.2.7.5 routine

inspections.

4.10 Maintaining Updated SWPPP

You must amend the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan whenever:

4.10.1 there is a change in design,

construction, operation, or maintenance

at your facility which has a significant

effect on the discharge, or potential for

discharge, of pollutants from your

facility;

4.10.2 During inspections,

monitoring, or investigations by you or

by local, State, Tribal or Federal officials

it is determined the SWPPP is

ineffective in eliminating or

significantly minimizing pollutants

from sources identified under 4.2.4, or

is otherwise not achieving the general

objectives of controlling pollutants in

discharges from your facility.

4.11 Signature, Plan Review and

Making Plans Available

4.11.1 You must sign your SWPPP

in accordance with Part 9.7, and retain

the plan on-site at the facility covered

by this permit (see Part 8 for records

retention requirements).

4.11.2 You must keep a copy of the

SWPPP on-site or locally available to

the Director for review at the time of an

on-site inspection. You must make your

SWPPP available upon request to the

Director, a State, Tribal or local agency

approving storm water management

plans, or the operator of a municipal

separate storm sewer receiving

discharge from the site. Also, in the

interest of the public’s right to know,

you must provide a copy of your SWPPP

to the public if requested in writing to

do so.

4.11.3 The Director may notify you

at any time that your SWPPP does not

meet one or more of the minimum

requirements of this permit. The

notification will identify provisions of

this permit which are not being met, as

well as the required modifications.

Within thirty (30) calendar days of

receipt of such notification, you must

make the required changes to the

SWPPP and submit to the Director a

written certification that the requested

changes have been made.

4.11.4 You must make the SWPPP

available to the USFWS or NMFS upon

request.

4.12 Additional Requirements for

Storm Water Discharges Associated

With Industrial Activity From Facilities

Subject to EPCRA Section 313

Reporting Requirements

Potential pollutant sources for which

you have reporting requirements under

EPCRA 313 must be identified in your

summary of potential pollutant sources

as per Part 4.2.4. Note this additional

requirement only applies to you if you

are subject to reporting requirements

under EPCRA 313.

5. Monitoring Requirements and

Numeric Limitations

There are five individual and separate

categories of monitoring requirements

and numeric limitations that your

facility may be subject to under this

64816 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

permit. The monitoring requirements

and numeric limitations applicable to

your facility depend on a number of

factors, including: (1) The types of

industrial activities generating storm

water runoff from your facility, and (2)

the state or tribe where your facility is

located. Part 6 identifies monitoring

requirements applicable to specific

sectors of industrial activity. Part 13

contains additional requirements that

apply only to facilities located in a

particular State or Indian country land.

You must review Parts 5, 6 and 13 of the

permit to determine which monitoring

requirements and numeric limitations

apply to your facility. Unless otherwise

specified, limitations and monitoring

requirements under Parts 5, 6, and 13

are additive.

Sector-specific monitoring

requirements and limitations are

applied discharge by discharge at

facilities with co-located activities.

Where storm water from the co-located

activities are co-mingled, the monitoring

requirements and limitations are

additive. Where more than one numeric

limitation for a specific parameter

applies to a discharge, compliance with

the more restrictive limitation is

required. Where monitoring

requirements for a monitoring quarter

overlap (e.g., need to monitor TSS 1/

year for a limit and also 1/quarter for

benchmark monitoring), you may use a

single sample to satisfy both monitoring

requirements.

5.1 Types of Monitoring Requirements

and Limitations

5.1.1 Quarterly Visual Monitoring

The requirements and procedures for

quarterly visual monitoring are

applicable to all facilities covered under

this permit, regardless of your facility’s

sector of industrial activity.

5.1.1.1 You must perform and

document a quarterly visual

examination of a storm water discharge

associated with industrial activity from

each outfall, except discharges

exempted below. The visual

examination must be made during

daylight hours (e.g., normal working

hours). If no storm event resulted in

runoff from the facility during a

monitoring quarter, you are excused

from visual monitoring for that quarter

provided you document in your

monitoring records that no runoff

occurred. You must sign and certify the

documentation in accordance with Part

9.7.

5.1.1.2 Your visual examinations

must be made of samples collected

within the first 30 minutes (or as soon

thereafter as practical, but not to exceed

1 hour) of when the runoff or snowmelt

begins discharging from your facility.

The examination must document

observations of color, odor, clarity,

floating solids, settled solids, suspended

solids, foam, oil sheen, and other

obvious indicators of storm water

pollution. The examination must be

conducted in a well lit area. No

analytical tests are required to be

performed on the samples. All such

samples must be collected from the

discharge resulting from a storm event

that is greater than 0.1 inches in

magnitude and that occurs at least 72

hours from the previously measurable

(greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm

event. The 72-hour storm interval is

waived when the preceding measurable

storm did not yield a measurable

discharge, or if you are able to

document that less than a 72-hour

interval is representative for local storm

events during the sampling period.

Where practicable, the same individual

should carry out the collection and

examination of discharges for the entire

permit term. If no qualifying storm

event resulted in runoff from the facility

during a monitoring quarter, you are

excused from visual monitoring for that

quarter provided you document in your

monitoring records that no qualifying

storm event occurred that resulted in

storm water runoff during that quarter.

You must sign and certify the

documentation in accordance with Part

9.7.

5.1.1.3 You must maintain your

visual examination reports onsite with

the Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan. The report must include the

examination date and time, examination

personnel, the nature of the discharge (i.e.,

runoff or snow melt), visual quality of

the storm water discharge (including

observations of color, odor, clarity,

floating solids, settled solids, suspended

solids, foam, oil sheen, and other

obvious indicators of storm water

pollution), and probable sources of any

observed storm water contamination.

5.1.1.4 Inactive and Unstaffed Sites:

When you are unable to conduct visual

storm water examinations at an inactive

and unstaffed site, you may exercise a

waiver of the monitoring requirement as

long as the facility remains inactive and

unstaffed. If you exercise this waiver,

you must maintain a certification with

the Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan stating that the site is inactive and

unstaffed and that performing visual

examinations during a qualifying event

is not feasible. You must sign and

certify the waiver in accordance with

Part 9.7.

5.1.2 Benchmark Monitoring of

Discharges Associated With Specific

Industrial Activities

Table 5–1 identifies the specific

industrial sectors subject to the

Benchmark Monitoring requirements of

this permit and the industry-specific

pollutants of concern. You must refer to

the tables found in the individual

Sectors in Part 6 for Benchmark

Monitoring Cut-Off Concentrations. If

your facility has co-located activities

(see Part 1.2.1.1) described in more than

one sector in Part 6, you must comply

with all applicable benchmark

monitoring requirements from each

sector.

The results of benchmark monitoring

are primarily for your use to determine

the overall effectiveness of your SWPPP

in controlling the discharge of

pollutants to receiving waters.

Benchmark values, included in Part 6 of

this permit, are not viewed as effluent

limitations. An exceedance of a

benchmark value does not, in and of

itself, constitute a violation of this

permit. While exceedance of a

benchmark value does not automatically

indicate that violation of a water quality

standard has occurred, it does signal

that modifications to the SWPPP may be

necessary. In addition, exceedance of

benchmark values may identify facilities

that would be more appropriately

covered under an individual, or

alternative general permit where more

specific pollution prevention controls

could be required.

TABLE 5–1.—INDUSTRY SECTORS/SUB-SECTORS SUBJECT TO BENCHMARK MONITORING

MSGP sector 1 Industry sub-sector Required parameters for benchmark monitoring

A ........................................................ General Sawmills and Planing Mills .........................

Wood Preserving Facilities .......................................

Log Storage and Handling .......................................

Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills .................

COD, TSS, Zinc.

Arsenic, Copper.

TSS.

COD, TSS.

B ........................................................ Paperboard Mills ...................................................... COD.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64817

TABLE 5–1.—INDUSTRY SECTORS/SUB-SECTORS SUBJECT TO BENCHMARK MONITORING—Continued

MSGP sector 1 Industry sub-sector Required parameters for benchmark monitoring

C ........................................................ Industrial Inorganic Chemicals .................................

Plastics, Synthetic Resins, etc. ................................

Aluminum, Iron, Nitrate + Nitrite N.

Zinc.

Soaps, Detergents, Cosmetics, Perfumes ............... Nitrate + Nitrite N, Zinc.

Agricultural Chemicals .............................................. Nitrate + Nitrite N, Lead, Iron, Zinc, Phosphorus.

D ........................................................ Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials ..................... TSS.

E ........................................................ Clay Products ...........................................................

Concrete Products ....................................................

Aluminum.

TSS, Iron.

F ......................................................... Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills.

Iron and Steel Foundries ..........................................

Non-Ferrous Rolling and Drawing ............................

Non-Ferrous Foundries (Castings) ...........................

Aluminum, Zinc.

Aluminum, TSS, Copper, Iron, Zinc.

Copper, Zinc.

Copper, Zinc.

G 2 ...................................................... Copper Ore Mining and Dressing ............................ COD, TSS, Nitrate + Nitrite N

H ........................................................ Coal Mines and Coal-Mining Related Facilities ....... TSS, Aluminum, Iron

J ......................................................... Dimension Stone, Crushed Stone, and Nonmetallic

Minerals (except fuels).

Sand and Gravel Mining ..........................................

TSS.

Nitrate + Nitrite N, TSS.

K ........................................................ Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal .. Ammonia, Magnesium, COD, Arsenic, Cadmium,

Cyanide, Lead, Mercury, Selenium, Silver.

L ......................................................... Landfills, Land Application Sites, and Open Dumps Iron, TSS.

M ........................................................ Automobile Salvage Yards ....................................... TSS, Aluminum, Iron, Lead.

N ........................................................ Scrap Recycling ....................................................... Copper, Aluminum, Iron, Lead, Zinc, TSS, COD.

O ........................................................ Steam Electric Generating Facilities ........................ Iron.

Q ........................................................ Water Transportation Facilities ................................ Aluminum, Iron, Lead, Zinc.

S ........................................................ Airports with deicing activities 3 ................................ BOD, COD, Ammonia, pH.

U ........................................................ Grain Mill Products ...................................................

Fats and Oils ............................................................

TSS.

BOD, COD, Nitrate + Nitrite N, TSS.

Y ........................................................ Rubber Products ...................................................... Zinc.

AA ...................................................... Fabricated Metal Products Except Coating .............

Fabricated Metal Coating and Engraving ................

Iron, Aluminum, Zinc, Nitrate + Nitrite N.

Zinc, Nitrate + Nitrite N.

1Table does not include parameters for compliance monitoring under effluent limitations guidelines.

2See Sector G (Part 6.G) for additional monitoring discharges from waste rock and overburden piles from active ore mining or dressing facilities. 3 Monitoring requirement is for airports with deicing activities that utilize more than 100 tons of urea or more than 100,000 gallons of ethylene

glycol per year.

5.1.2.1 Monitoring Periods for

Benchmark Monitoring. Unless

otherwise specified in Part 6,

benchmark monitoring periods are

October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002

(year two of the permit) and October 1,

2003 to September 30, 2004 (year four

of the permit). If your facility falls

within a Sector(s) required to conduct

benchmark monitoring, you must

monitor quarterly (4 times a year)

during at least one, and potentially both,

monitoring periods; unless otherwise

specified in the sector-specific

requirements of Part 6. Depending on

the results of the 2001–2002 monitoring

year, you may not be required to

conduct benchmark monitoring in the

2003–2004 monitoring year (see Part

5.1.2.2).

5.1.2.2 Benchmark Monitoring Year

2003–2004 Waivers for Facilities Testing

Below Benchmark Values. All of the

provisions of Part 5.1.2.2 are available to

permittees except as noted in Part 6.

Waivers from benchmark monitoring are

available to facilities whose discharges

are below benchmark values, thus there

is an incentive for facilities to improve

the effectiveness of their SWPPPs in

eliminating discharges of pollutants and

avoid the cost of monitoring.

On both a parameter by parameter and

outfall by outfall basis, you are not

required to conduct sector-specific

benchmark monitoring in the 2003–

2004 monitoring year provided:

• You collected samples for all four

quarters of the 2001–2002 monitoring

year and the average concentration was

below the benchmark value in Part 6;

and

• You are not subject to a numeric

limitation or State/Tribal-specific

monitoring requirement for that

parameter established in Part 5.2 or Part

13; and

• You include a certification in the

SWPPP that based on current potential

pollutant sources and BMPs used,

discharges from the facility are

reasonably expected to be essentially

the same (or cleaner) compared to when

the benchmark monitoring for the 2001–

2002 monitoring year was done.

5.1.2.3 Inactive and Unstaffed Sites.

If you are unable to conduct benchmark

monitoring at an inactive and unstaffed

site, you may exercise a waiver of the

monitoring requirement as long as the

facility remains inactive and unstaffed.

If you exercise this waiver, you must

maintain a certification with your Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan stating

that the site is inactive and unstaffed

and that performing benchmark

monitoring during a qualifying storm

event is not feasible. You must sign and

certify the waiver in accordance with

Part 9.7.

5.1.3 Coal Pile Runoff

5.1.3.1 If your facility has discharges

of storm water from coal storage piles,

you must comply with the limitations

and monitoring requirements of Table

5–2 for all discharges containing the

coal pile runoff, regardless of your

facility’s sector of industrial activity.

64818 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 5–2.—NUMERIC LIMITATIONS FOR COAL PILE RUNOFF

Parameter Limit Monitoring frequency Sample type

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ................. 50 mg/L, max ........................................... 1/year ....................................................... Grab.

pH .............................................................. 6.0–9.0 min. and max .............................. 1/year ....................................................... Grab.

5.1.3.2 You must not dilute coal pile

runoff with storm water or other flows

in order to meet this limitation.

5.1.3.3 If your facility is designed,

constructed and operated to treat the

volume of coal pile runoff that is

associated with a 10-year, 24-hour

rainfall event, any untreated overflow of

coal pile runoff from the treatment unit

is not subject to the 50 mg/L limitation

for total suspended solids.

5.1.3.4 You must collect and analyze

your samples in accordance with Part

5.2.2. Results of the testing must be

retained and reported in accordance

with Part 8 and 9.16.

5.1.4 Compliance Monitoring for

Discharges Subject to Numerical

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

Table 1–2 of Part 1.2.2.1.3 of the

permit identifies storm water discharges

subject to effluent limitation guidelines

that are authorized for coverage under

the permit. Facilities subject to storm

water effluent limitation guidelines are

required to monitor such discharges to

evaluate compliance with numerical

effluent limitations. Industry-specific

numerical limitations and compliance

monitoring requirements are described

in Part 6 of the permit.

5.1.5 Monitoring for Limitations

Required by a State or Tribe

Unless otherwise specified in Part 13

(state/tribal-specific permit conditions),

you must sample once per year for any

permit limit established as a result of a

state or tribe’s conditions for

certification of this permit under CWA

§ 401.

5.2 Monitoring Instructions

5.2.1 Monitoring Periods

If you are required to conduct

monitoring on an annual or quarterly

basis, you must collect your samples

within the following time periods

(unless otherwise specified in Part 6):

• The monitoring year is from

October 1 to September 30

• If your permit coverage was

effective less than one month from the

end of a quarterly or yearly monitoring

period, your first monitoring period

starts with the next respective

monitoring period. (e.g., if permit

coverage begins June 5th, you would not

need to start quarterly sampling until

the July—September quarter, but you

would only have from June 5th to

September 30th to complete that year’s

annual monitoring )

5.2.2 Collection and Analysis of

Samples

You must assess your sampling

requirements on an outfall by outfall

basis. You must collect and analyze

your samples in accordance with the

requirements of Part 9.16.

5.2.2.1 When and How to Sample.

Take a minimum of one grab sample

from the discharge associated with

industrial activity resulting from a storm

event with at least 0.1 inch of

precipitation (defined as a ‘‘measurable’’

event), providing the interval from the

preceding measurable storm is at least

72 hours. The 72-hour storm interval is

waived when the preceding measurable

storm did not yield a measurable

discharge, or if you are able to

document that less than a 72-hour

interval is representative for local storm

events during the sampling period.

Take the grab sample during the first

30 minutes of the discharge. If it is not

practicable to take the sample during

the first 30 minutes, sample during the

first hour of discharge and describe why

a grab sample during the first 30

minutes was impracticable. Submit this

information on or with the discharge

monitoring report (see Part 7.1). If the

sampled discharge commingles with

process or non-process water, attempt to

sample the storm water discharge before

it mixes with the non-storm water.

To get help with monitoring, consult

the Guidance Manual for the Monitoring

and Reporting Requirements of the

NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector

General Permit which can be down

loaded from the EPA Web Site at

www.epa.gov/OWM/sw/industry/

index.htm. It can also be ordered from

the Office of Water Resource Center by

calling 202–260–7786.

5.2.3 Storm Event Data

Along with the results of your

monitoring, you must provide the date

and duration (in hours) of the storm

event(s) samples; rainfall measurements

or estimates (in inches) of the storm

event that generated the sampled runoff;

the duration between the storm event

samples and the end of the previous

measurable (greater than 0.1 inch

rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of

the total volume (in gallons) of the

discharge samples.

5.2.4 Representative Outfalls—

Essential Identical Discharges

If your facility has two (2) or more

outfalls that you believe discharge

substantially identical effluents, based

on similarities of the industrial

activities, significant materials or storm

water management practices occurring

within the outfalls’ drainage areas, you

may test the effluent of just one of the

outfalls and report that the quantitative

data also applies to the substantially

identical outfall(s). For this to be

permissible, you must describe in the

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

and include in the Discharge Monitoring

Report the following: locations of the

outfalls; why the outfalls are expected to

discharge substantially identical

effluents; estimates of the size of the

drainage area (in square feet) for each of

the outfalls; and an estimate of the

runoff coefficient of the drainage areas

(low: under 40 percent; medium: 40 to

65 percent; high: above 65 percent).

Note: Page 107 of the NPDES Storm

Water Sampling Guidance Document

(EPA 800/B–92–001) lists criteria for

substantially identical outfalls (available

on EPA’s web site at http://

www.epa.gov/owm/sw/industry/).

5.3 General Monitoring Waivers

Unless specifically stated otherwise,

the following waivers may be applied to

any monitoring required under this

permit.

5.3.1 Adverse Climatic Conditions

Waiver

When adverse weather conditions

prevent the collection of samples, take

a substitute sample during a qualifying

storm event in the next monitoring

period, or four samples per monitoring

year when weather conditions do not

allow for samples to be spaced evenly

during the year. Adverse conditions

(i.e., those which are dangerous or

create inaccessibility for personnel) may

include such things as local flooding,

high winds, electrical storms, or

situations which otherwise make

sampling impracticable such as drought

or extended frozen conditions.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64819

5.3.2 Alternative Certification of ‘‘Not

Present or No Exposure’’

You are not subject to the analytical

monitoring requirements of Part 5.1.2

provided:

5.3.2.1 You make a certification for

a given outfall, or on a pollutant-bypollutant basis in lieu of monitoring

required under Part 5.1.2, that material

handling equipment or activities, raw

materials, intermediate products, final

products, waste materials, by-products,

industrial machinery or operations, or

significant materials from past

industrial activity that are located in

areas of the facility within the drainage

area of the outfall are not presently

exposed to storm water and are not

expected to be exposed to storm water

for the certification period; and

5.3.2.2 Your certification is signed

in accordance with Part 9.7, retained in

the Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan, and submitted to EPA in

accordance with Part 7. In the case of

certifying that a pollutant is not present,

the permittee must submit the

certification along with the monitoring

reports required Part 7; and

5.3.2.3 If you cannot certify for an

entire period, you must submit the date

exposure was eliminated and any

monitoring required up until that date;

and

5.3.2.4 No numeric limitation or

State-specific monitoring requirement

for that parameter is established in Part

5 or Part 13.

5.4 Monitoring Required by the

Director

The Director may provide written

notice to any facility, including those

otherwise exempt from the sampling

requirements of Parts 5, 6 and 12,

requiring discharge sampling for a

specific monitoring frequency for

specific parameters. Any such notice

will briefly state the reasons for the

monitoring, parameters to be monitored,

frequency and period of monitoring,

sample types, and reporting

requirements.

5.5 Reporting Monitoring Results

Deadlines and procedures for

submitting monitoring reports are

contained in Part 7.

6. Sector-Specific Requirements for

Industrial Activity

You only need to comply with the

additional requirements of Part 6 that

apply to the sector(s) of industrial

activity at your facility. These sectorspecific requirements are in addition to

the ‘‘basic’’ requirements specified in

Parts 1–5 and 7–13 of this permit.

6.A Sector A—Timber Products

6.A.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.A apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Timber Products

facilities as identified by the SIC Codes

specified under Sector A in Table 1–1

of Part 1.2.1.

6.A.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector A

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector A are primarily engaged in

are:

6.A.2.1 Cutting timber and

pulpwood (those that have log storage or

handling areas);

6.A.2.2 Mills, including merchant,

lath, shingle, cooperage stock, planing,

plywood and veneer;

6.A.2.3 Producing lumber and wood

basic materials;

6.A.2.4 Wood preserving;

6.A.2.5 Manufacturing finished

articles made entirely of wood or related

materials except wood kitchen cabinet

manufacturers (covered under Part

6.23);

6.A.2.6 Manufacturing wood

buildings or mobile homes.

6.A.3 Special Coverage Conditions

6.A.3.1 Prohibition of Discharges.

(See also Part 1.2.3.1) Not covered by

this permit: storm water discharges from

areas where there may be contact with

the chemical formulations sprayed to

provide surface protection. These

discharges must be covered by a

separate NPDES permit.

6.A.3.2 Authorized Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.1)

Also authorized by this permit,

provided the non-storm water

component of the discharge is in

compliance with SWPPP requirements

in Part 4.2.7 (Controls): discharges from

the spray down of lumber and wood

product storage yards where no

chemical additives are used in the spray

down waters and no chemicals are

applied to the wood during storage.

6.A.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.A.4.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Also identify

where any of the following may be

exposed to precipitation/surface runoff:

processing areas; treatment chemical

storage areas; treated wood and residue

storage areas; wet decking areas; dry

decking areas; untreated wood and

residue storage areas; and treatment

equipment storage areas.

6.A.4.2 Inventory of Exposed

Materials. (See also Part 4.2.4) Where

such information exists, if your facility

has used chlorophenolic, creosote or

chromium-copper-arsenic formulations

for wood surface protection or

preserving, identify the following: areas

where contaminated soils, treatment

equipment and stored materials still

remain, and the management practices

employed to minimize the contact of

these materials with storm water runoff.

6.A.4.3 Description of Storm Water

Management Controls. (See also Part

4.2.7). Describe and implement

measures to address the following

activities/sources: log, lumber and wood

product storage areas; residue storage

areas; loading and unloading areas;

material handling areas; chemical

storage areas; and equipment/vehicle

maintenance, storage and repair areas. If

your facility performs wood surface

protection/preservation activities,

address the specific BMPs for these

activities.

6.A.4.4 Good Housekeeping. (See

also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1). In areas where

storage, loading/unloading and material

handling occur, perform good

housekeeping to limit the discharge of

wood debris; minimize the leachate

generated from decaying wood

materials; and minimize the generation

of dust.

6.A.4.5 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5). If your facility performs

wood surface protection/preservation

activities, inspect processing areas,

transport areas and treated wood storage

areas monthly to assess the usefulness

of practices to minimize the deposit of

treatment chemicals on unprotected

soils and in areas that will come in

contact with storm water discharges.

6.A.5 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements (See also Part 5)

64820 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE A–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

[Sector of permit affected/supplemental requirements]

Subsector

(Discharge may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation 2

General Sawmills and Planning Mills (SIC 2421) ........... Chemical Oxygen Demand

(COD).

120.0 mg/L.

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

100 mg/L.

Total Zinc ........................... 0.117 mg/L.

Wood Preserving (SIC 2491) .......................................... Total Arsenic ..................... 0.16854 mg/L.

Total Copper ...................... 0.0636 mg/L.

Log Storage and Handling (SIC 2411) ............................ Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

100 mg/L.

Wet Decking Discharges at Log Storage and Handling

Areas (SIC 2411).

pH ...................................... ............................................ 6.0–9.0 s.u.

Debris (woody material

such as bark, twigs,

branches, heartwood, or

sapwood).

............................................ No Discharge of debris

that will not pass through

a 2.54 cm (1′′) diameter

round opening.

Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills; Special Products Sawmills, not elsewhere classified; Millwork, Veneer, Plywood and Structural Wood; Wood Containers; Wood Buildings and Mobile Homes; Reconstituted Wood Products; and Wood Products Facilities

not elsewhere classified (SIC Codes 2426, 2429,

2431–2439 (except 2434), 2448, 2449, 2451, 2452,

2593, and 2499).

Chemical Oxygen Demand

(COD).

120.0 mg/L.

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

100.0 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 monitoring years.

2 Monitor once per year for each monitoring year.

6.B Sector B—Paper and Allied

Products Manufacturing

6.B.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.B apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Paper and

Allied Products Manufacturing facilities

as identified by the SIC Codes specified

under Sector B in Table 1–1 of Part

1.2.1.

6.B.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector B

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector B are primarily engaged in

are:

6.B.2.1 Manufacture of pulps from

wood and other cellulose fibers and

from rags;

6.B.2.2 Manufacture of paper and

paperboard into converted products, i.e.

paper coated off the paper machine,

paper bags, paper boxes and envelopes;

6.B.2.3 Manufacture of bags of

plastic film and sheet.

6.B.3 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements (See also Part 5)

TABLE B–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring and

cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Paperboard Mills (SIC Code 2631) ................................. COD ................................... 120.0 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 monitoring years

6.C Sector C—Chemical and Allied

Products Manufacturing

6.C.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.C apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Chemical and

Allied Products Manufacturing facilities

as identified by the SIC Codes specified

under Sector C in Table 1–1 of Part

1.2.1.

6.C.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector C

The requirements listed under this

Part apply to storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity from

a facility engaged in manufacturing the

following products:

6.C.2.1 basic industrial inorganic

chemicals;

6.C.2.2 plastic materials and

synthetic resins, synthetic rubbers, and

cellulosic and other human made fibers,

except glass;

6.C.2.3 soap and other detergents,

including facilities producing glycerin

from vegetable and animal fats and oils;

speciality cleaning, polishing and

sanitation preparations; surface active

preparations used as emulsifiers,

wetting agents and finishing agents,

including sulfonated oils; and perfumes,

cosmetics and other toilet preparations;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64821

6.C.2.4 paints (in paste and ready

mixed form); varnishes; lacquers;

enamels and shellac; putties, wood

fillers, and sealers; paint and varnish

removers; paint brush cleaners; and

allied paint producers;

6.C.2.5 industrial organic chemicals;

6.C.2.6 industrial and household

adhesives, glues, caulking compounds,

sealants, and linoleum, tile and rubber

cements from vegetable, animal or

synthetic plastic materials; explosives;

printing ink, including gravure, screen

process and lithographic inks;

miscellaneous chemical preparations

such as fatty acids, essential oils, gelatin

(except vegetable), sizes, bluing, laundry

sours, writing and stamp pad ink,

industrial compounds such as boiler

and heat insulating compounds, and

chemical supplies for foundries;

6.C.2.7 ink and paints, including

china painting enamels, indian ink,

drawing ink, platinum paints for burnt

wood or leather work, paints for china

painting, artists’ paints and artists’

water colors;

6.C.2.8 nitrogenous and phosphatic

basic fertilizers, mixed fertilizers,

pesticides and other agricultural

chemicals.

6.C.3 Limitations on Coverage

6.C.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.3)

Not covered by this permit: non-storm

water discharges containing inks, paints

or substances (hazardous,

nonhazardous, etc.) resulting from an

onsite spill, including materials

collected in drip pans; washwater from

material handling and processing areas;

and washwater from drum, tank or

container rinsing and cleaning.

6.C.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.C.4.1 Drainage Area Site Map. (See

also Part 4.2.2.3) Also identify where

any of the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: processing

and storage areas; access roads, rail cars

and tracks; areas where substances are

transferred in bulk; and operating

machinery.

6.C.4.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Describe the

following sources and activities that

have potential pollutants associated

with them: loading, unloading and

transfer of chemicals; outdoor storage of

salt, pallets, coal, drums, containers,

fuels, fueling stations; vehicle and

equipment maintenance/cleaning areas;

areas where the treatment, storage or

disposal (on- or off-site) of waste/

wastewater occur; storage tanks and

other containers; processing and storage

areas; access roads, rail cars and tracks;

areas where the transfer of substances in

bulk occurs; and areas where machinery

operates.

6.C.4.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1) As

part of your good housekeeping

program, include a schedule for regular

pickup and disposal of garbage and

waste materials, or adopt other

appropriate measures to reduce the

potential for discharging storm water

that has contacted garbage or waste

materials. Routinely inspect the

condition of drums, tanks and

containers for potential leaks.

6.C.5 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements (See also Part 5)

TABLE C–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation 2

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Phosphate Subcategory of the Fertilizer Manufacturing

Point Source Category (40 CFR § 418.10)—applies to

precipitation runoff, that during manufacturing or

processing, comes into contact with any raw materials, intermediate product, finished product, by-products or waste product (SIC 2874).

Total Phosphorus (as P) ... ............................................ 105.0 mg/L, daily max.

35 mg/L, 30-day avg.

Fluoride .............................. ............................................ 75.0 mg/L, daily max.

25.0 mg/L, 30-day avg.

Agricultural Chemicals (2873–2879) ............................... Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen

Total Recoverable Lead ....

Total Recoverable Iron ......

Total Recoverable Zinc .....

Phosphorus .......................

0.68 mg/L.

0.0816 mg/L. .....................

1.0 mg/L. ...........................

0.117 mg/L. .......................

2.0 mg/L. ...........................

Industrial Inorganic Chemicals (2812–2819) ................... Total Recoverable Aluminum

Total Recoverable Iron. .....

0.75 mg/L

1.0 mg/L ............................

0.68 mg/L ..........................

Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen

Soaps, Detergents, Cosmetics, and Perfumes (SIC

2841–2844).

Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen

Total Recoverable Zinc .....

0.68 mg/L.

0.117 mg/L..

Plastics, Synthetics, and Resins (SIC 2821–2824) ........ Total Recoverable Zinc ..... 0.117 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

2 Monitor once/year for each Monitoring Year.

6.D Sector D—Asphalt Paving and

Roofing Materials and Lubricant

Manufacturers

6.D.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.D apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Asphalt Paving

and Roofing Materials and Lubricant

Manufacturers facilities as identified by

the SIC Codes specified under Sector D

in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.D.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector D

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector D are primarily engaged in

are:

6.D.2.1 manufacturing asphalt

paving and roofing materials;

64822 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

6.D.2.2 portable asphalt plant

facilities;

6.D.2.3 manufacturing lubricating

oils and greases.

6.D.3 Limitations on Coverage

The following storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity are

not authorized by this permit:

6.D.3.1 discharges from petroleum

refining facilities, including those that

manufacture asphalt or asphalt products

that are classified as SIC code 2911;

6.D.3.2 discharges from oil recycling

facilities;

6.D.3.3 discharges associated with

fats and oils rendering.

6.D.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.D.4.1 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Inspect at least once per

month, as part of the maintenance

program, the following areas: Material

storage and handling areas, liquid

storage tanks, hoppers/silos, vehicle and

equipment maintenance, cleaning and

fueling areas, material handling

vehicles, equipment and processing

areas. Ensure appropriate action is taken

in response to the inspection by

implementing tracking or follow up

procedures.

6.D.5 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also part 5)

TABLE D–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric Limitation 2

Sector of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials (SIC 2951, 2952) Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

100mg/L.

Discharges from areas where production of asphalt

paving and roofing emulsions occurs (SIC 2951,

2952).

TSS .................................... ............................................ 23.0 mg/L, daily max

15.0 mg/L 30-day avg.

Oil and Grease .................. ............................................ 15.0 mg/L daily max.

10mg/L, 30-day avg.

pH ...................................... ............................................ 6.0–9.0

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 monitoring years.

2 Monitor once per year for each monitoring year.

6.E Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement,

Concrete, and Gypsum Products

6.E.1 Covered Storm Water Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.E apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Glass, Clay,

Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum

Products facilities as identified by the

SIC Codes specified under Sector E in

Table 1–1 of part 1.2.1.

6.E.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector E

The requirements listed under this

permit apply to storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity from

a facility engaged in either

manufacturing the following products or

performing the following activities:

6.E.2.1 flat, pressed, or blown glass

or glass containers;

6.E.2.2 hydraulic cement;

6.E.2.3 clay products including tile

and brick;

6.E.2.4 pottery and porcelain

electrical supplies;

6.E.2.5 concrete products;

6.E.2.6 gypsum products;

6.E.2.7 minerals and earths, ground

or otherwise treated;

6.E.2.8 non-clay refractories:

6.E.2.9. lime manufacturing

6.E.2.10 cut stone and stone

products

6.E.2.11 asbestos products

6.E.2.12 mineral wool and mineral

wool insulation products.

6.E.3 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.E.3.1 Drainage Area Site Map. (See

also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify the locations

of the following, as applicable: bag

house or other dust control device;

recycle/sedimentation pond, clarifier or

other device used for the treatment of

process wastewater, and the areas that

drain to the treatment device.

6.E.3.2 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.2.3) With

good housekeeping prevent or minimize

the discharge of: spilled cement;

aggregate (including sand or gravel);

kiln dust; fly ash; settled dust; or other

significant material in storm water from

paved portions of the site that are

exposed to storm water. Consider using

regular sweeping or other equivalent

measures to minimize the presence of

these materials. Indicate in your SWPPP

the frequency of sweeping or equivalent

measures. Determine the frequency from

the amount of industrial activity

occurring in the area and the frequency

of precipitation, but it must be

performed at least once a week if

cement, aggregate, kiln dust, fly ash or

settled dust are being handled/

processed. You must also prevent the

exposure of fine granular solids

(cement, fly ash, kiln dust, etc.) to storm

water where practicable, by storing

these materials in enclosed silos/

hoppers, buildings or under other

covering.

6.E.3.3 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Perform inspections while

the facility is in operation and include

all of the following areas exposed to

storm water: material handling areas,

above ground storage tanks, hoppers or

silos, dust collection/containment

systems, truck wash down/equipment

cleaning areas.

6.E.3.4 Certification. (See also Part

4.4.1) For facilities producing ready-mix

concrete, concrete block, brick or

similar products, include in the nonstorm water discharge certification a

description of measures that insure that

process waste water resulting from truck

washing, mixers, transport buckets,

forms or other equipment are discharged

in accordance with NPDES

requirements or are recycled.

6.E.4 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64823

TABLE E–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitaiton 2

Sector of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Clay Product Manufacturers ............................................

(SIC 3245–3259,3261–3269) ..........................................

Total Recoverable Aluminum.0.75 mg/L

Concrete and Gypsum Product Manufacturers (SIC

3271–3275).

TSS ....................................

Total Recoverable Iron ......

100 mg/L

1.0 mg/L

Cement Manufacturing Facility, Material Storage Runoff:

Any discharge composed of runoff that derives from

the storage of materials including raw materials, intermediate products, finished products, and waste materials that are used in or derived from the manufacture

of cement.

Total Suspended Solids

(TTS≤.

50 mg/L daily max..

pH ...................................... ............................................ 6.0–9.0 S.U.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 monitoring years.

2 Monitor once per year for each monitoring year.

6.F Sector F—Primary Metals

6.F.1 Covered Storm Water Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.F apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Primary Metals

facilities as identified by the SIC Codes

specified under Sector F in Table 1–1 of

Part 1.2.1.

6.F.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector F

The types of activities under this Part

are facilities primarily engaged in are:

6.F.2.1 Steel works, blast furnaces,

and rolling and finishing mills

including: steel wire drawing and steel

nails and spikes; cold-rolled steel sheet,

strip, and bars; and steel pipes and

tubes;

6.F.2.2 Iron and steel foundries,

including: gray and ductile iron,

malleable iron, steel investment, and

steel foundries not elsewhere classified;

6.F.2.3 Primary smelting and

refining of nonferrous metals, including:

primary smelting and refining of copper,

and primary production of aluminum;

6.F.2.4 Secondary smelting and

refining of nonferrous metals;

6.F.2.5 Rolling, drawing, and

extruding of nonferrous metals,

including: rolling, drawing, and

extruding of copper; rolling, drawing

and extruding of nonferrous metals

except copper and aluminum; and

drawing and insulating of nonferrous

wire;

6.F.2.6 Nonferrous foundries

(castings), including: aluminum diecasting, nonferrous die-casting, except

aluminum, aluminum foundries, copper

foundries, and nonferrous foundries,

except copper and aluminum;

6.F.2.7 Miscellaneous primary metal

products, not elsewhere classified,

including: metal heat treating, and

primary metal products not elsewhere

classified;

Activities covered include but are not

limited to storm water discharges

associated with cooking operations,

sintering plants, blast furnaces, smelting

operations, rolling mills, casting

operations, heat treating, extruding,

drawing, or forging all types of ferrous

and nonferrous metals, scrap and ore.

6.F.3 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.F.3.1 Drainage Area Site Map. (See

also Part 4.2.2.3) Also identify where

any of the following activities may be

exposed to precipitation/surface runoff:

storage or disposal of wastes such as

spent solvents/baths, sand, slag/dross;

liquid storage tanks/drums; processing

areas including pollution control

equipment (e.g., baghouses); and storage

areas of raw material such as coal, coke,

scrap, sand, fluxes, refractories or metal

in any form. In addition, indicate where

an accumulation of significant amounts

of particulate matter could occur from

such sources as furnace or oven

emissions, losses from coal/coke

handling operations, etc., and which

could result in a discharge of pollutants

to waters of the United States.

6.F.3.2 Inventory of Exposed

Material. (See also Part 4.2.4) Include in

the inventory of materials handled at

the site that potentially may be exposed

to precipitation/runoff, areas where

deposition of particulate matter from

process air emissions or losses during

material handling activities are possible.

6.F.3.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1) As

part of your good housekeeping

program, include: a cleaning/

maintenance program for all impervious

areas of the facility where particulate

matter, dust or debris may accumulate,

especially areas where material loading/

unloading, storage, handling and

processing occur; the paving of areas

where vehicle traffic or material storage

occur but where vegetative or other

stabilization methods are not practicable

(institute a sweeping program in these

areas too). For unstabilized areas where

sweeping is not practicable, consider

using storm water management devices

such as sediment traps, vegetative buffer

strips, filter fabric fence, sediment

filtering boom, gravel outlet protection

or other equivalent measures that

effectively trap or remove sediment.

6.F.3.4 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Conduct inspections

routinely, or at least on a quarterly

basis, and address all potential sources

of pollutants, including (if applicable):

air pollution control equipment (e.g.,

baghouses, electrostatic precipitators,

scrubbers and cyclones) for any signs of

degradation (e.g., leaks, corrosion or

improper operation) that could limit

their efficiency and lead to excessive

emissions. Consider monitoring air flow

at inlets/outlets (or use equivalent

measures) to check for leaks (e.g.,

particulate deposition) or blockage in

ducts. Also inspect all process and

material handling equipment (e.g.,

conveyors, cranes and vehicles) for

leaks, drips or the potential loss of

material; and material storage areas (e.g.,

piles, bins or hoppers for storing coke,

coal, scrap or slag, as well as chemicals

stored in tanks/drums) for signs of

material losses due to wind or storm

water runoff.

6.F.4 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

64824 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE F–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Sector of permit affected/supplemental requirements—

Subsector (Discharges may be subject to requirements

for more than one sector/subsector) Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoffconcentration 1

Numeric limitation

Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills (SIC 3312–3317).Total Recoverable Aluminum ..................

Total Recoverable Zinc ...........................

0.75 mg/L

0.117 mg/L.

Iron and Steel Foundries (SIC 3321–3325) .................. Total Recoverable Aluminum ..................

Total Suspended Solids ..........................

Total Recoverable Copper ......................

Total Recoverable Iron ............................

Total Recoverable Zinc ...........................

0.75 mg/L.

100 mg/L

0.0636 mg/L

1.0 mg/L

0.117 mg/L.

Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Non-Ferrous Metals

(SIC 3351–3357).

Total Recoverable Copper ......................

Total Recoverable Zinc ...........................

0.0636 mg/L

0.117 mg/L.

Non-Ferrous Foundries (SIC 3363–3369) ..................... Total Recoverable Copper ......................

Total Recoverable Zinc ...........................

0.636 mg/L.

0.117 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

6.G Sector G—Metal Mining (Ore

Mining and Dressing)

6.G.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.G apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from active,

temporarily inactive and inactive metal

mining and ore dressing facilities,

including mines abandoned on Federal

Lands, as identified by the SIC Codes

specified under Sector G in Table 1–1 of

Part 1.2.1. Coverage is required for

facilities that discharge storm water

contaminated by contact with or that

has come into contact with, any

overburden, raw material, intermediate

product, finished product, byproduct, or

waste product located on the site of the

operation.

6.G.1.1 Covered Discharges from

Inactive Facilities: All storm water

discharges.

6.G.1.2 Covered Discharges from

Active and Temporarily Inactive

Facilities: Only the storm water

discharges from the following areas are

covered: waste rock/overburden piles if

composed entirely of storm water and

not combining with mine drainage;

topsoil piles; offsite haul/access roads;

onsite haul/access roads constructed of

waste rock/overburden/spent ore if

composed entirely of storm water and

not combining with mine drainage;

onsite haul/access roads not constructed

of waste rock/overburden/spent ore

except if mine drainage is used for dust

control; runoff from tailings dams/dikes

when not constructed of waste rock/

tailings and no process fluids are

present; runoff from tailings dams/dikes

when constructed of waste rock/tailings

if and no process fluids are present if

composed entirely of storm water and

not combining with mine drainage;

concentration building if no contact

with material piles; mill site if no

contact with material piles; office/

administrative building and housing if

mixed with storm water from industrial

area; chemical storage area; docking

facility if no excessive contact with

waste product that would otherwise

constitute mine drainage; explosive

storage; fuel storage; vehicle/equipment

maintenance area/building; parking

areas (if necessary); power plant; truck

wash areas if no excessive contact with

waste product that would otherwise

constitute mine drainage; unreclaimed,

disturbed areas outside of active mining

area; reclaimed areas released from

reclamation bonds prior to December

17, 1990; and partially/inadequately

reclaimed areas or areas not released

from reclamation bonds.

6.G.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector G

Note: ‘‘metal mining’’ will connote any of

the separate activities listed in Part 6.G.2.

The types of activities that permittees under

Sector G are primarily engaged in are:

6.G.2.1 exploring for metallic

minerals (ores), developing mines and

the mining of ores;

6.G.2.2 ore dressing and

beneficiating, whether performed at colocated, dedicated mills or separate (i.e.,

custom) mills.

6.G.3 Limitations on Coverage

6.G.3.1 Prohibition of Storm Water

Discharges.

Storm water discharges not

authorized by this permit: discharges

from active metal mining facilities

which are subject to effluent limitation

guidelines for the Ore Mining and

Dressing Point Source Category (40 CFR

Part 440).

Note: discharges that come in contact with

overburden/waste rock are subject to 40 CFR

Part 440, providing: the discharges drain to

a point source (either naturally or as a result

of intentional diversion) and they combine

with ‘‘mine drainage’’ that is otherwise

regulated under the Part 440 regulations.

Discharges from overburden/waste rock can

be covered under this permit if they are

composed entirely of storm water, do not

combine with sources of mine drainage that

are subject to 40 CFR Part 440, and meet

other eligibility criteria contained in Part

1.2.2.1.

6.G.3.2 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges.

Not authorized by this permit: adit

drainage and contaminated springs or

seeps (see also the standard Limitations

on Coverage in Part 1.2.3).

6.G.4 Definitions

6.G.4.1 Mining Operation—typically

consists of three phases, any one of

which individually qualifies as a

‘‘mining activity.’’ The phases are the

exploration and construction phase, the

active phase, and the reclamation phase.

6.G.4.2 Exploration and

Construction Phase—entails exploration

and land disturbance activities to

determine the financial viability of a

site. Construction includes the building

of site access roads and removal of

overburden and waste rock to expose

mineable minerals.

6.G.4.3 Active Phase—activities

including each step from extraction

through production of a salable product.

6.G.4.4 Reclamation Phase—

activities intended to return the land to

its pre-mining use

The following definitions are not

intended to supercede the definitions of

active and inactive mining facilities

established by 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(iii).

6.G.4.5 Active Metal Mining

Facility—a place where work or other

activity related to the extraction,

removal or recovery of metal ore is

being conducted. For surface mines, this

definition does not include any land

where grading has returned the earth to

a desired contour and reclamation has

begun.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64825

6.G.4.6 Inactive Metal Mining

Facility—a site or portion of a site

where metal mining and/or milling

occurred in the past but is not an active

facility as defined above, and where the

inactive portion is not covered by an

active mining permit issued by the

applicable State or Federal government

agency.

6.G.4.7 Temporarily Inactive Metal

Mining Facility—a site or portion of a

site where metal mining and/or milling

occurred in the past but currently are

not being actively undertaken, and the

facility is covered by an active mining

permit issued by the applicable State or

Federal government agency.

6.G.5 Clearing, Grading and

Excavation Activities

Clearing, grading and excavation

activities being conducted as part of the

exploration and construction phase of a

mining operation cannot be covered

under this permit if these activities will

disturb one or more acre of land.

Instead, coverage for these activities

must be under the latest version of

EPA’s General Permit for Storm Water

Discharges from Construction Activities

(the ‘‘Construction General Permit;’’

Federal Register, Vol. 63, p. 7858 and

for Region 6, Federal Register, Vol. 63,

p. 36490), or an individual construction

permit. If the area of disturbance during

the initial phase is less than one acre,

you must continue to comply with the

requirements of the MSGP–2000.

6.G.5.1 Requirements for Activities

Disturbing 5 or More Acres of Earth. If

the one-acre limit as defined in Part

6.G.5 is attained, coverage for these

activities must be under the latest

version of EPA’s Construction General

Permit (or individual permit). You must

first obtain and comply with the

Construction General Permit’s

requirements before submitting the

separate Construction General Permit

Notice of Intent (NOI) form (EPA Form

3510–9). The February 17, 1998 version

of the permit can be downloaded from

the EPA’s Web Site at www.epa.gov/

owm/sw/construction/cgp/cgp-nat.pdf

and Region 6’s July 6, 1998 version of

the permit at www.epa.gov/owm/sw/

construction/cgp/cgp-reg6.pdf or

obtained from the Office of Water

Resource Center at (202) 260–7786. The

NOI form is also available from the Web

Site at www.epa.gov/owm/sw/

construction/connoi.pdf or from your

EPA Regional office at the address listed

under Part 8.3. Discharges in

compliance with the provisions of the

Construction General Permit are also

authorized under the MSGP.

6.G.5.2 Cessation of Earth Disturbing

Activities. If exploration phase clearing,

grading and excavation activities are

completed and no further mining

activities will occur at the site, you must

comply with the requirements for

terminating the Construction General

Permit, i.e., stabilize and revegetate the

disturbed land, submit a Notice of

Termination, etc. If active mining

activities will ensue, you must apply for

coverage under the MSGP–2000 for your

storm water discharges and be prepared

to implement any new requirements

prior to beginning the active phase. It is

recommended you terminate your

coverage under the Construction

General Permit, but it is not mandatory

that you do so. If you choose not to

terminate your construction General

Permit, you will be responsible for

complying with all permit conditions of

the construction permit in addition to

those of the MSGP–2000. The Notice of

Termination form is Addendum E to

this permit and is available at http://

www.epa.gov/owm/sw/industry/msgp/

notform.pdf.

6.G.6 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.G.6.1 SWPPP Requirements for

Active and Temporarily Inactive Metal

Mining Facilities. 

6.G.6.1.1 Nature of Industrial

Activities. (See also Part 4.2.2.1 ) Briefly

describe the mining and associated

activities that can potentially affect the

storm water discharges covered by this

permit, including: the total acreage

within the mine site; the estimated

acreage of disturbed land; the estimated

acreage of land proposed to be disturbed

throughout the life of the mine; and a

general description of the location of the

site relative to major transportation

routes and communities.

6.G.6.1.2 Site Map. (See also Part

4.2.2.3) Also identify the locations of

the following (as appropriate): mining/

milling site boundaries; access and haul

roads; outline of the drainage areas of

each storm water outfall within the

facility and indicate the types of

discharges from the drainage areas;

equipment storage, fueling and

maintenance areas; materials handling

areas; outdoor manufacturing, storage or

material disposal areas; chemicals and

explosives storage areas; overburden,

materials, soils or waste storage areas;

location of mine drainage (where water

leaves mine) or other process water;

tailings piles/ponds (including

proposed ones); heap leach pads; off-site

points of discharge for mine drainage/

process water; surface waters; and

boundary of tributary areas that are

subject to effluent limitations

guidelines.

6.G.6.1.3 Potential Pollutant

Sources. (See also Part 4.2.4) For each

area of the mine/mill site where storm

water discharges associated with

industrial activities occur, identify the

types of pollutants (e.g., heavy metals,

sediment) likely to be present in

significant amounts. Consider these

factors: the mineralogy of the ore and

waste rock (e.g., acid forming); toxicity

and quantity of chemicals used,

produced or discharged; the likelihood

of contact with storm water; vegetation

of site (if any); history of significant

leaks/spills of toxic or hazardous

pollutants. Also include a summary of

any existing ore or waste rock/

overburden characterization data and

test results for potential generation of

acid rock. If any new data is acquired

due to changes in ore type being mined,

update your SWPPP with this

information.

6.G.6.1.4 Site Inspections. (See also

Part 4.2.7.2.1.5) Inspect active mining

sites at least monthly. Inspect

temporarily inactive sites at least

quarterly unless adverse weather

conditions make the site inaccessible.

6.G.6.1.5 Employee Training. (See

also Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) Conduct employee

training at least annually at active

mining and temporarily inactive sites.

6.G.6.1.6 Controls. (See also Part

4.2.7) Consider each of the following

BMPs. The potential pollutants

identified in Part 6.G.6.1.3 shall

determine the priority and

appropriateness of the BMPs selected. If

you determine that one or more of these

BMPs are not appropriate for your

facility, explain why it is not

appropriate. If BMPs are implemented

or planned but are not listed here (e.g.,

substituting a less toxic chemical for a

more toxic one), include descriptions of

them in your SWPPP.

6.G.6.1.6.1 Storm Water Diversions.

Consider diverting storm water away

from potential pollutant sources. BMP

options: interceptor/diversion controls

(e.g., dikes, swales, curbs or berms);

pipe slope drains; subsurface drains;

conveyance systems (e.g., channels or

gutters, open top box culverts and

waterbars; rolling dips and road sloping;

roadway surface water deflector, and

culverts); or their equivalents.

6.G.6.1.6.2 Sediment and Erosion

Control. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.2.1) At

active and temporarily inactive sites

consider a range of erosion controls

within the broad categories of: flow

diversion (e.g., swales); stabilization

(e.g., temporary or permanent seeding);

and structural controls (e.g., sediment

traps, dikes, silt fences).

64826 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

6.G.6.1.6.3 Management of Runoff.

(See also Part 4.2.7.2.2.2) Consider the

potential pollutant sources given in Part

6.G.6.1.3 when determining reasonable

and appropriate measures for managing

runoff.

6.G.6.1.6.4 Capping. When capping

is necessary to minimize pollutant

discharges in storm water, identify the

source being capped and the material

used to construct the cap.

6.G.6.1.6.5 Treatment. If treatment

of storm water (e.g., chemical or

physical systems, oil/water separators,

artificial wetlands, etc.) from active and

temporarily inactive sites is necessary to

protect water quality, describe the type

and location of treatment used.

6.G.6.1.6.6 Certification of Discharge

Testing. (See also Part 4.4.1) Test or

evaluate for the presence of specific

mining-related non-storm water

discharges such as seeps or adit

discharges or discharges subject to

effluent limitations guidelines (e.g., 40

CFR Part 440), such as mine drainage or

process water. Alternatively (if

applicable), you may certify in your

SWPPP that a particular discharge

comprised of commingled storm water

and non-storm water is covered under a

separate NPDES permit; and that permit

subjects the non-storm water portion to

effluent limitations prior to any

commingling. This certification shall

identify the non-storm water discharges,

the applicable NPDES permit(s), the

effluent limitations placed on the nonstorm water discharge by the permit(s),

and the points at which the limitations

are applied.

6.G.6.2 SWPPP Requirements for

Inactive Metal Mining Facilities. 

6.G.6.2.1 Nature of Industrial

Activities. (See also Part 4.2.2.1) Briefly

describe the mining and associated

activities that took place at the site that

can potentially affect the storm water

discharges covered by this permit.

Include: approximate dates of operation;

total acreage within the mine and/or

processing site; estimate of acres of

disturbed earth; activities currently

occurring onsite (e.g., reclamation); a

general description of site location with

respect to transportation routes and

communities.

6.G.6.2.2 Site Map. (See also Part

4.2.2.3) See Part 6.G.6.1.2 for

requirements.

6.G.6.2.3 Potential Pollutant

Sources. (See also Part 4.2.4) See Part

6.G.6.1.3 for requirements.

6.G.6.2.4 Controls. (See also Part

4.2.7) Consider each of the following

BMPs. The potential pollutants

identified in Part 6.G.6.2.3 shall

determine the priority and

appropriateness of the BMPs selected. If

you determine that one or more of these

BMPs are not appropriate for your

facility, explain why it is not

appropriate. If BMPs are implemented

or planned but are not listed here (e.g.,

substituting a less toxic chemical for a

more toxic one), include descriptions of

them in your SWPPP. The nonstructural controls in the general

requirements at Part 4.2.7.2.1 are not

required for inactive facilities.

6.G.6.2.4.1 Storm Water Diversions.

See Part 6.G.6.1.6.2 for requirements.

6.G.6.2.4.2 Sediment and Erosion

Control. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.2.1) See

Part 6.G.6.1.6 for requirements.

6.G.6.2.4.3 Management of Runoff.

(See also Part 4.2.7.2.2.2)

Also consider the potential pollutant

sources as described in Part 6.G.6.2.3

(Summary of Potential Pollutant

Sources) when determining reasonable

and appropriate measures for managing

runoff.

6.G.6.2.4.4 Capping. See Part

6.G.6.1.7 for requirements.

6.G.6.2.4.5 Treatment. See Part

6.G.6.1.8 for requirements.

6.G.6.2.5 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also Part

4.9)

Annual site compliance evaluations

may be impractical for inactive mining

sites due to remote location/

inaccessibility of the site; in which case

conduct the evaluation at least once

every 3 years. Document in the SWPPP

why annual compliance evaluations are

not possible. If the evaluations will be

conducted more often than every 3

years, specify the frequency of

evaluations.

6.G.7 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

6.G.7.1 Analytic Monitoring for

Copper Ore Mining and Dressing

Facilities. Active copper ore mining and

dressing facilities must sample and

analyze storm water discharges for the

pollutants listed in Table G–1.

TABLE G–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING FOR COPPER ORE

MINING AND DRESSING FACILITIES

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Copper Ore Mining and Dressing Facilities ....................

(SIC 1021) .......................................................................

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen

Chemical Oxygen Demand

(COD).

100 mg/L.

0.68 mg/L.

120 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

6.G.7.2 Analytic Monitoring

Requirements for Discharges From

Waste Rock and Overburden Piles at

Active Ore Mining and Dressing

Facilities.For discharges from waste

rock and overburden piles, perform

analytic monitoring at least once within

the first year of permit coverage for the

parameters listed in Table G–2, and

twice annually thereafter for any

parameters measured above the

benchmark value (based on the initial

sampling event) listed in Table G–2.

Permittees must also conduct analytic

monitoring twice annually for the

parameters listed in Table G–3. The

twice annual samples must be collected

once between January 1 and June 30 and

once between July 1 and December 31,

with at least 3 months separating the

storm events. The director may,

however, notify you that you must

perform additional monitoring to

accurately characterize the quality and

quantity of pollutants discharged from

your waste rock/overburden piles.

Monitoring requirements for discharges

from waste rock and overburden piles

are not eligible for the waivers in Part

5.3.2.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64827

TABLE G–2.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING FOR DISCHARGES FROM

WASTE ROCK AND OVERBURDEN PILES FROM ACTIVE ORE MINING OR DRESSING FACILITIES

Part of permit affected/supplemental requirements—

Subsector (Discharges may be subject to requirements

for more than one sector/subsector) Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoffconcentration 1

Numeric

limitation

Iron Ores; Copper Ores; Lead and Zinc Ores; Gold and

Silver Ores; Ferroalloy Ores Except Vanadium; Miscellaneous Metal Ores (SIC Codes 1011, 1021, 1031,

1041, 1044, 1061, 1081, 1094, 1099).

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ...............

Turbidity (NTUs) ......................................

pH ............................................................

Hardness (as CaCO3) .............................

100 mg/L.

5 NTUs above background.

6.0–9.0 standard units.

no benchmark value.

See above, as applicable ................................................. Antimony, Total .......................................

Arsenic, Total ..........................................

Beryllium, Total .......................................

Cadmium, Total (hardness dependent) ..

Copper, Total (hardness dependent) ......

Iron, Total ................................................

Lead, Total (hardness dependent) ..........

Manganese, Total ...................................

Mercury, Total .........................................

Nickel, Total (hardness dependent) ........

Selenium, Total .......................................

Silver, Total (hardness dependent) .........

Zinc, Total (hardness dependent) ...........

0.636 mg/L.

0.16854 mg/L.

0.13 mg/L.

0.0159 mg/L.

0.0636 mg/L.

1.0 mg/L.

0.0816 mg/L.

1.0 mg/L.

0.0024 mg/L.

1.417 mg/L.

0.2385 mg/L.

0.318 mg/L.

0.117 mg/L.

1 Monitor at least once during the first year of permit coverage, and twice annually thereafter for any parameter that exceeds the benchmark

value. Facilities that monitored for the full list of Table G–2 parameters during the previous permit need not sample the entire list again, however

they must continue twice annual monitoring for parameters that exceeded the benchmark values in the initial sampling event.

6.G.7.2.1 Additional Analytic

Monitoring Requirements for Discharges

From Waste Rock and Overburden Piles.

Table G–3 contains additional

monitoring requirements for specific ore

mine categories. Perform the monitoring

twice annually using the schedule

established in Part 6.G.7.2. The initial

sampling event for a pollutant

parameter required in Table G–2

satisfies the requirement for the first

sample of any pollutant measurement in

Table G–3.

TABLE G–3.—ADDITIONAL MONOTORING REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGES FROM WASTE ROCK AND OVERBURDEN PILES

FROM ACTIVE ORE MINING OR DRESSING FACILITIES

Supplemental requirements—

Type of Ore mined

Pollutants of concern

Total suspended solids

(TSS)

pH Metals, total

Tungsten Ore ...................................................................... X X Arsenic, Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Lead (H), Zinc (H).

Nickel Ore ........................................................................... X X Arsenic, Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Lead (H), Zinc (H).

Aluminum Ore ..................................................................... X X Iron.

Mercury Ore ........................................................................ X X Nickel (H).

Iron Ore ............................................................................... X X Iron (Dissolved).

Platinum Ore ....................................................................... ........................ ............ Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Mercury, Lead (H), Zinc (H).

Titanium Ore ....................................................................... X X Iron, Nickel (H), Zinc (H).

Vanadium Ore ..................................................................... X X Arsenic, Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Zinc (H).

Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver and Molybdenum ........... X X Arsenic, Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Lead, Mercury, Zinc

(H).

Uranium, Radium and Vanadium ........................................ X X Chemical Oxygen Demand, Arsenic, Radium (Dissolved

and Total), Uranium, Zinc (H).

Note: (H) indicates that hardness must also be measured when this pollutant is measured.

6.G.7.2.2 Reporting Requirements

Storm Water Discharges From Waste

Rock And Overburden Piles From Active

Ore Mining or Dressing Facilities. From

active ore mining and dressing facilities,

submit monitoring results for each

outfall discharging storm water from

waste rock and overburden piles, or

certifications in accordance with Part 7.

Submit monitoring reports on discharge

monitoring report (DMR) forms

postmarked no later than January 28 of

the next year after the samples were

collected.

64828 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE G–4.—APPLICABILITY OF THE MULTI-SECTOR GENERAL PERMIT TO STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM ACTIVE ORE

(METAL) MINING AND DRESSING SITES

Discharge/source of discharge Note/comment

Piles

Waste rock/overburden ................................................................................................................... If composed entirely of storm water and not

combining with mine drainage. See Note

below.

Topsoil

Roads constructed of waste rock or spent ore

Onsite haul roads ............................................................................................................................ If composed entirely of storm water and not

combining with mine drainage. See Note

below.

Offsite haul/access roads

Roads not constructed of waste rock or spent ore

Onsite haul roads ............................................................................................................................ Except if ‘‘mine drainage’’ is used for dust control.

Offsite haul/access roads

Milling/concentrating

Runoff from tailings dams/dikes when constructed of waste rock/tailings ..................................... Except if process fluids are present and only if

composed entirely of storm water and not

combining with mine drainage. See Note

below.

Runoff from tailings dams/dikes when not constructed of waste rock/tailings ............................... Except if process fluids are present.

Concentration building ..................................................................................................................... If storm water only and no contact with piles.

Mill site ............................................................................................................................................. If storm water only and no contact with piles.

Ancillary areas

Office/administrative building and housing ...................................................................................... If mixed with storm water from the industrial

area.

Chemical storage area

Docking facility ................................................................................................................................. Except if excessive contact with waste product

that would otherwise constitute ‘‘mine drainage’’.

Explosive storage

Fuel storage (oil tanks/coal piles)

Vehicle/equipment maintenance area/building

Parking areas .................................................................................................................................. But coverage unnecessary if only employee

and visitor-type parking.

Power plant

Truck wash area .............................................................................................................................. Except when excessive contact with waste

product that would otherwise constitute

‘‘mine drainage’’.

Reclamation-related areas

Any disturbed area (unreclaimed) ................................................................................................... Only if not in active mining area.

Reclaimed areas released from reclamation bonds prior to Dec. 17 1990.

Partially/inadequately reclaimed areas or areas not released from reclamation bond.

Note: Storm water runoff from these sources are subject to the NPDES program for storm water unless mixed with discharges subject to the

40 CFR Part 440 that are not regulated by another permit prior to mixing. Non-storm water discharges from these sources are subject to NPDES

permitting and may be subject to the effluent limitation guidelines under 40 CFR Part 440.

Discharges from overburden/waste rock and overburden/waste rock-related areas are not subject to 40 CFR Part 440 unless: (1) it drains naturally (or is intentionally diverted) to a point source; and (2) combines with ‘‘mine drainage’’ that is otherwise regulated under the Part 440 regulations. For such sources, coverage under this permit would be available if the discharge composed entirely of storm water does not combine

with other sources of mine drainage that are not subject to 40 CFR Part 440, as well as meeting other eligibility criteria contained in Part I.B. of

the permit. Permit applicants bear the initial responsibility for determining the applicable technology-based standard for such discharges. EPA

recommends that permit applicants contact the relevant NPDES permit issuance authority for assistance to determine the nature and scope of

the ‘‘active mining area’’ on a mine-by-mine basis, as well as to determine the appropriate permitting mechanism for authorizing such discharges.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64829

6.H Sector H—Coal Mines and Coal

Mining Related Facilities

6.H.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.H apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Coal Mines and

Coal Mining Related facilities as

identified by the SIC Codes specified

under Sector H in Table 1–1 of Part

1.2.1.

6.H.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector H

Storm water discharges from the

following portions of coal mines may be

eligible for this permit:

6.H.2.1 Haul roads (nonpublic roads

on which coal or coal refuse is

conveyed);

6.H.2.2 Access roads (nonpublic

roads providing light vehicular traffic

within the facility property and to

public roadways);

6.H.2.3 Railroad spurs, siding and

internal haulage lines (rail lines used for

hauling coal within the facility property

and to offsite commercial railroad lines

or loading areas);

6.H.2.4 Conveyor belts, chutes and

aerial tramway haulage areas (areas

under and around coal or refuse

conveyer areas, including transfer

stations); and

6.H.2.5 Equipment storage and

maintenance yards, coal handling

buildings and structures, and inactive

coal mines and related areas (abandoned

and other inactive mines, refuse

disposal sites and other mining-related

areas).

6.H.3 Limitation on Coverage

6.H.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.2.2)

Not covered by this permit: discharges

from pollutant seeps or underground

drainage from inactive coal mines and

refuse disposal areas that do not result

from precipitation events; and

discharges from floor drains in

maintenance buildings and other similar

drains in mining and preparation plant

areas.

6.H.3.2 Discharges Subject to Storm

Water Effluent Guidelines. (See also Part

1.2.3.4) Not authorized by this permit:

storm water discharges subject to an

existing effluent limitation guideline at

40 CFR Part 434.

6.H.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4 of

the MSGP.

6.H.4.1 Other Applicable

Regulations. Most active coal miningrelated areas (SIC Codes 1221–1241) are

subject to sediment and erosion control

regulations of the U.S. Office of Surface

Mining (OSM) that enforces the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act

(SMCRA). OSM has granted authority to

most coal producing states to implement

SMCRA through State SMCRA

regulations. All SMCRA requirements

regarding control of storm water-related

pollutant discharges must be addressed

in the SWPPP (directly or by reference).

6.H.4.2 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Also identify

where any of the following may be

exposed to precipitation/surface runoff:

all applicable mining related areas

described in Part 6.H.2; acidic spoil,

refuse or unreclaimed disturbed areas,

and liquid storage tanks containing

pollutants such as caustics, hydraulic

fluids and lubricants.

6.H.4.3 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Describe the

following sources and activities that

have potential pollutants associated

with them: truck traffic on haul roads

and resulting generation of sediment

subject to runoff and dust generation;

fuel or other liquid storage; pressure

lines containing slurry, hydraulic fluid

or other potential harmful liquids; and

loading or temporary storage of acidic

refuse/spoil.

6.H.4.4 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1) As

part of your good housekeeping

program, consider: using sweepers;

covered storage; watering haul roads to

minimize dust generation; and

conserving vegetation (where possible)

to minimize erosion.

6.H.4.5 Preventive Maintenance.

(See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.3) Also perform

inspections of storage tanks and

pressure lines of fuels, lubricants,

hydraulic fluid or slurry to prevent

leaks due to deterioration or faulty

connections; or other equivalent

measures.

6.H.4.6 Inspections of Active

Mining-Related Areas and Inactive

Areas Under SMCRA Bond Authority.

(See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.5) Perform

quarterly inspections of areas covered

by this permit, corresponding with the

inspections, as performed by SMCRA

inspectors, of all mining-related areas

required by SMCRA. Also maintain the

records of the SMCRA authority

representative.

6.H.4.7 Sediment and Erosion

Control. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.2.1) As

indicated in Part 6.H.4.1 above, SMCRA

requirements regarding sediment and

erosion control measures are primary

requirements of the SWPPP for miningrelated areas subject to SMCRA

authority.

6.H.4.8 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also Part

4.9.2) Include in your evaluation

program, inspections for pollutants

entering the drainage system from

activities located on or near coal

mining-related areas. Among the areas

to be inspected: haul and access roads;

railroad spurs, sliding and internal

hauling lines; conveyor belts, chutes

and aerial tramways; equipment storage

and maintenance yards; coal handling

buildings/structures; and inactive mines

and related areas.

6.H.6 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

TABLE H–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements

for more than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring

cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Coal Mines and Related Areas ........................

(SIC 1221–1241) ..............................................

Total Recoverable Aluminum ..........................

Total Recoverable Iron ...................................

Total Suspended Solids ..................................

0.75 mg/L.

1.0 mg/L.

100 mg/L..

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

64830 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

6.I Sector I—Oil and Gas Extraction

and Refining

6.I.1 Covered Storm Water Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.I apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Oil and Gas

Extraction and Refining facilities as

identified by the SIC Codes specified

under Sector I in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.I.2 Industrial Activities Covered By

Sector I

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector I are primarily engaged in

are:

6.I.2.1 Oil and gas exploration,

production, processing or treatment

operations, or transmission facilities;

6.I.2.2 Extraction and production of

crude oil, natural gas, oil sands and

shale; the production of hydrocarbon

liquids and natural gas from coal; and

associated oil field service, supply and

repair industries.

6.I.3 Limitations On Coverage

6.I.3.1 Prohibition of Storm Water

Discharges. This permit does not

authorize contaminated storm water

discharges from petroleum refining or

drilling operations that are subject to

nationally established BAT or BPT

guidelines found at 40 CFR Parts 419

and 435, respectively. Note: most

contaminated discharges at petroleum

refining and drilling facilities are

subject to these effluent guidelines and

are not eligible for coverage by this

permit.

6.I.3.2 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. Not authorized by

this permit: discharges of vehicle and

equipment washwater, including tank

cleaning operations.

Alternatively, washwater discharges

must be authorized under a separate

NPDES permit, or be discharged to a

sanitary sewer in accordance with

applicable industrial pretreatment

requirements.

6.I.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.I.4.1 Drainage Area Site Map. (See

also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where any of

the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: Reportable

Quantity (RQ) releases; locations used

for the treatment, storage or disposal of

wastes; processing areas and storage

areas; chemical mixing areas;

construction and drilling areas; all areas

subject to the effluent guidelines

requirements for ‘‘No Discharge’’ in

accordance with 40 CFR 435.32; and the

structural controls to achieve

compliance with the ‘‘No Discharge’’

requirements.

6.I.4.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4)

Also describe the following sources

and activities that have potential

pollutants associated with them:

chemical, cement, mud or gel mixing

activities; drilling or mining activities;

and equipment cleaning and

rehabilitation activities. In addition,

include information about the RQ

release that triggered the permit

application requirements; the nature of

release (e.g., spill of oil from a drum

storage area); the amount of oil or

hazardous substance released; amount

of substance recovered; date of the

release; cause of the release (e.g., poor

handling techniques and lack of

containment in the area); areas affected

by the release (i.e., land and water);

procedure to clean up release; actions or

procedures implemented to prevent or

improve response to a release; and

remaining potential contamination of

storm water from release (taking into

account human health risks, the control

of drinking water intakes and the

designated uses of the receiving water).

6.I.4.3 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5)

6.I.4.3.1 Inspection Frequency.

Inspect all equipment and areas

addressed in the SWPPP at a minimum

of 6-month intervals. Routinely (but not

less than quarterly) inspect equipment

and vehicles which store, mix

(including all on and offsite mixing

tanks) or transport chemicals/hazardous

materials (including those transporting

supplies to oil field activities).

6.I.4.3.2 Temporarily or

Permanently Inactive Oil and Gas

Extraction Facilities. For these facilities

that are remotely located and unstaffed,

perform the inspections at least

annually.

6.I.4.4 Sediment and Erosion

Control. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.2.1)

Unless covered by the General Permit

for Construction Activity, the additional

sediment and erosion control

requirements for well drillings, and

sand/shale mining areas include the

following:

6.I.4.4.1 Site Description: Also

include: a description of the nature of

the exploration activity; estimates of the

total area of site and area disturbed due

to exploration activity; an estimate of

runoff coefficient of the site; site

drainage map, including approximate

slopes; and the name of all receiving

waters. All sediment and erosion

control measures must be inspected

once every seven days.

6.I.4.4.2 Vegetative Controls:

Describe and implement vegetative

practices designed to preserve existing

vegetation where attainable and revegetate open areas as soon as

practicable after grade drilling. Consider

the following (or equivalent measures):

temporary or permanent seeding,

mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative

buffer strips, tree protection practices.

Begin implementing appropriate

vegetative practices on all disturbed

areas within 14 days following the last

activity in that area.

6.I.4.5 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.I.4.5.1 Vehicle and Equipment

Storage Areas. Confine vehicles/

equipment awaiting or having

undergone maintenance to designated

areas (as marked on site map). Describe

and implement measures to minimize

contaminants from these areas (e.g., drip

pans under equipment, indoor storage,

use of berms or dikes, or other

equivalent measures).

6.I.4.5.2 Material and Chemical

Storage Areas. Maintain these areas in

good conditions to prevent

contamination of storm water. Plainly

label all hazardous materials.

6.I.4.5.3 Chemical Mixing Areas.

(See also Part 4.4)

Describe and implement measures

that prevent or minimize contamination

of storm water runoff from chemical

mixing areas.

6.J Sector J—Mineral Mining and

Dressing

6.J.1 Covered Storm Water Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.J apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from active and

inactive mineral mining and dressing

facilities as identified by the SIC Codes

specified under Sector J in Table 1–1 of

Part 1.2.1.

6.J.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector J

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector J are primarily engaged in

are:

6.J.2.1 exploring for minerals (e.g.,

stone, sand, clay, chemical and fertilizer

minerals, non-metallic minerals, etc.),

developing mines and the mining of

minerals; and

6.J.2.2 mineral dressing, and nonmetallic mineral services.

6.J.3 Limitations on Coverage

Not authorized by this permit: most

storm water discharges subject to an

existing effluent limitation guideline at

40 CFR part 436. The exceptions to this

limitation and which are therefore

covered by the MSGP–2000 are mine

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64831

dewatering discharges composed

entirely of storm water or ground water

seepage from: construction sand and

gravel, industrial sand, and crushed

stone mining facilities in Regions 1, 2,

3, 6, 8, 9, and 10.

6.J.4 Definitions

6.J.4.1 Mining Operation—typically

consists of three-phases, any one of

which individually qualifies as a

‘‘mining activity.’’ The phases are the

exploration and construction phase, the

active phase and the reclamation phase.

6.J.4.2 Exploration and Construction

Phase—entails exploration and land

disturbance activities to determine the

financial viability of a site. Construction

includes the building of site access

roads and removal of overburden and

waste rock to expose mineable minerals.

6.J.4.3 Active Phase—activities

including each step from extraction

through production of a salable product.

6.J.4.4 Reclamation phase—

activities intended to return the land to

its pre-mining state.

Note: The following definitions are not

intended to supercede the definitions of

active and inactive mining facilities

established by 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(iii).

6.J.4.5 Active Mineral Mining

Facility—a place where work or other

activity related to the extraction,

removal or recovery of minerals is being

conducted. This definition does not

include any land where grading has

returned the earth to a desired contour

and reclamation has begun.

6.J.4.6 Inactive Mineral Mining

Facility—a site or portion of a site

where mineral mining and/or dressing

occurred in the past but is not an active

facility as defined above, and where the

inactive portion is not covered by an

active permit issued by the applicable

State or Federal government agency.

6.J.4.7 Temporarily Inactive Mineral

Mining Facility—a site or portion of a

site where mineral mining and/or

dressing occurred in the past but

currently are not being actively

undertaken, and the facility is covered

by an active mining permit issued by

the applicable State or Federal

government agency.

6.J.5 Clearing, Grading and

Excavation Activities

Clearing, grading and excavation

activities being conducted as part of the

exploration and construction phase of a

mineral mining operation cannot be

covered under this permit if these

activities will disturb one or more acre

of land. Instead, coverage for these

activities must be under the latest

version of EPA’s General Permit for

Storm Water Discharges from

Construction Activities (the

‘‘Construction General Permit;’’ Federal

Register, Vol. 63, p. 7858) and, for

Region 6, Federal Register, Vol. 63, p.

36490), or an individual construction

permit. If the area of disturbance during

the initial phase is less than one acre,

you must continue to comply with the

requirements of the MSGP–2000.

6.J.5.1 Obtaining Coverage Under

the Construction General Permit. If the

one-acre limit as described in Part 6.J.5

is attained, coverage for these activities

must be under the latest version of

EPA’s Construction General Permit (or

individual permit). You must first

obtain and comply with the

Construction General Permit’s

requirements before submitting the

separate Construction General Permit

Notice of Intent (NOI) form (EPA Form

3510–9). The February 17, 1998 version

of the permit can be downloaded from

the EPA’s Web Site at http://

www.epa.gov/owm/sw/construction/

cgp/cgp-nat.pdf or obtained from the

Office of Water Resource Center at (202)

260–7786. The NOI form is also

available from the Web Site at http://

www.epa.gov/owm/sw/construction/

connoi.pdf or from your EPA Regional

office at the address listed under Part

8.3. Discharges in compliance with the

provisions of the Construction General

Permit are also authorized under the

MSGP.

6.J.5.2 Cessation of Exploration and

Construction Activities. If exploration

phase clearing, grading and excavation

activities are completed and no further

mining activities will occur at the site,

you must comply with the requirements

for terminating the Construction General

Permit, i.e., stabilize and revegetate the

disturbed land, submit a Notice of

Termination, etc. If active mining

operations will ensue, you must apply

for coverage under the MSGP–2000 for

your storm water discharges and be

prepared to implement any new

requirements prior to beginning the

active phase. It is recommended you

terminate your coverage under the

construction general permit, but you are

not required to do so. If you choose to

not terminate, you will be responsible

for complying with all permit

conditions of the construction permit in

addition to those of the MSGP–2000.

The Notice of Termination form is

available in Addendum F to this permit

and at http://www.epa.gov/owm/sw/

industry/msgp/notform.pdf.

6.J.6 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4 of

the MSGP.

6.J.6.1 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Conduct quarterly visual

inspections of all BMPs at active mining

facilities. At temporarily or permanently

inactive facilities, perform annual

inspections. Include in your inspection

program: assessment of the integrity of

storm water discharge diversions,

conveyance systems, sediment control

and collection systems and containment

structures; inspections to determine if

soil erosion has occurred at, or as a

result of vegetative BMPs, serrated

slopes and benched slopes; inspections

of material handling and storage areas

and other potential sources of pollution

for evidence of actual or potential

discharges of contaminated storm water.

6.J.7 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

TABLE J–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation 2

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Mine Dewatering Activities at Construction Sand and

Gravel; Industrial Sand; and Crushed Stone Mining

Facilities (SIC 1422–1429, 1442, 1446).

Total Suspended Solids ....

pH ......................................

............................................ 25 mg/L, monthly avg. 45

mg/L, daily max

6.0–9.0

Sand and Gravel Mining (SIC 1442, 1446) ..................... Nitrate plus Nitrogen .........

Total Suspended Solids ....

0.68 mg/L.

100 mg/L.

64832 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE J–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING—Continued

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation 2

Dimension and Crushed Stone and Nonmetallic Minerals (except fuels) (SIC 1411, 1422–1429, 1481,

1499).

Total Suspended Solids .... 100 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

2 Monitor once/year for Each Monitoring Year.

6.K Sector K—Hazardous Waste

Treatment, Storage or Disposal

Facilities

6.K.1 Covered Storm Water Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.K apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Hazardous

Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal

facilities as identified by the Activity

Code specified under Sector K in Table

1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.K.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector K

This permit authorizes storm water

discharges associated with industrial

activity from facilities that treat, store or

dispose of hazardous wastes, including

those that are operating under interim

status or a permit under subtitle C of

RCRA.

6.K.3 Limitations on Coverage

For facilities located in Region 6,

coverage is limited to Hazardous Waste

Treatment Storage or Disposal Facilities

(TSDF’s) that are self-generating or

handle residential wastes only and to

those facilities that only store hazardous

wastes and do not treat or dispose.

Those permits are issued by EPA Region

6 for Louisiana (LAR05*###), New

Mexico (NMR05*###), Oklahoma

(OKR05*###), and Federal Indian

Reservations in these States

(LAR05*##F, NMR05*##F, OKR05*##F,

or TXR05*##F). Coverage under this

permit is not available to commercial

hazardous waste disposal/treatment

facilities located in Region 6 that

dispose and treat on a commercial basis

any produced hazardous wastes (not

their own) as a service to generators.

6.K.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.1)

Not authorized by this permit: leachate,

gas collection condensate, drained free

liquids, contaminated ground water,

laboratory-derived wastewater and

contact washwater from washing truck

and railcar exteriors and surface areas

which have come in direct contact with

solid waste at the landfill facility.

6.K.4 Definitions

6.K.4.1 Contaminated storm water—

storm water which comes in direct

contact with landfill wastes, the waste

handling and treatment areas, or landfill

wastewater as defined in Part 6.K.4.5.

Some specific areas of a landfill that

may produce contaminated storm water

include (but are not limited to): the

open face of an active landfill with

exposed waste (no cover added); the

areas around wastewater treatment

operations; trucks, equipment or

machinery that has been in direct

contact with the waste; and waste

dumping areas.

6.K.4.2 Drained free liquids—

aqueous wastes drained from waste

containers (e.g., drums, etc.) prior to

landfilling.

6.K.4.3 Land treatment facility—a

facility or part of a facility at which

hazardous waste is applied onto or

incorporated into the soil surface; such

facilities are disposal facilities if the

waste will remain after closure.

6.K.4.4 Landfill—an area of land or

an excavation in which wastes are

placed for permanent disposal, that is

not a land application or land treatment

unit, surface impoundment,

underground injection well, waste pile,

salt dome formation, a salt bed

formation, an underground mine or a

cave as these terms are defined in 40

CFR 257.2, 258.2 and 260.10.

6.K.4.5 Landfill wastewater—as

defined in 40 CFR Part 445 (Landfills

Point Source Category) all wastewater

associated with, or produced by,

landfilling activities except for sanitary

wastewater, non-contaminated storm

water, contaminated groundwater, and

wastewater from recovery pumping

wells. Landfill wastewater includes, but

is not limited to, leachate, gas collection

condensate, drained free liquids,

laboratory derived wastewater,

contaminated storm water and contact

washwater from washing truck,

equipment, and railcar exteriors and

surface areas which have come in direct

contact with solid waste at the landfill

facility.

6.K.4.6 Leachate—liquid that has

passed through or emerged from solid

waste and contains soluble, suspended,

or miscible materials removed from

such waste.

6.K.4.7 Non-contaminated storm

water—storm water which does not

come into direct contact with landfill

wastes, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or landfill wastewater

as defined in Part 6.K.4.5. Noncontaminated storm water includes

storm water which flows off the cap,

cover, intermediate cover, daily cover,

and/or final cover of the landfill.

6.K.4.8 Pile—any non-containerized

accumulation of solid, nonflowing

hazardous waste that is used for

treatment or storage and that is not a

containment building.

6.K.4.9 Surface impoundment—a

facility or part of a facility which is a

natural topographic depression, manmade excavation or diked area formed

primarily of earthen materials (although

it may be lined with man-made

materials), which is designed to hold an

accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes

containing free liquids, and which is not

an injection well. Examples of surface

impoundments are holding, storage,

settling, and aeration pits, ponds and

lagoons.

6.K.5 Numeric Limitations,

Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64833

TABLE K–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation 2

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

ALL—Industrial Activity Code ..........................................

‘‘HZ’’ (Note: permit coverage limited in some States) ....

Ammonia ........................... 19.0 mg/L

Total Recoverable Magnesium.0.0636 mg/L

Chemical Oxygen Demand

(COD).

120.0 mg/L

Total Recoverable Arsenic 0.16854 mg/L

Total Recoverable Cadmium.0.0159 mg/L

Total Cyanide .................... 0.0636 mg/L

Total Recoverable Lead .... 0.0816 mg/L

Total Recoverable Mercury 0.0024 mg/L

Total Recoverable Selenium.0.2385 mg/L

Total Recoverable Silver ... 0.0318 mg/L

ALL—Industrial Activity Code ..........................................

‘‘HZ’’ Subject to the Provisions of 40 CFR Part 445

Subpart A.

BOD5 ................................. ............................................ 220 mg/l, daily max.

56 mg/l, monthly avg. maximum.

TSS .................................... ............................................ 88 mg/l, daily max.

27 mg/l, monthly avg. maximum.

Ammonia ........................... ............................................ 10 mg/l, daily maximum.

4.9 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Alpha Terpineol ................. ............................................ 0.042 mg/l, daily max.

0.019 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Aniline ................................ ............................................ 0.024 mg/l, daily max.

0.015 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Benzoic Acid ...................... ............................................ 0.119 mg/l, daily max.

0.073 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Naphthalene ...................... ............................................ 0.059 mg/l, daily max.

0.022 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

p-Cresol ............................. ............................................ 0.024 mg/l, daily max.

0.015 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Phenol ............................... ............................................ 0.048 mg/l, daily max.

0.029 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Pyridine .............................. ............................................ 0.072 mg/l, daily max.

0.025 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Arsenic (Total) ................... ............................................ 1.1 mg/l, daily maximum.

0.54 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Chromium (Total) .............. ............................................ 1.1 mg/l, daily maximum.

0.46 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

Zinc (Total) ........................ ............................................ 0.535 mg/l, daily max.

0.296 mg/l, monthly avg.

maximum.

pH ...................................... ............................................ Within the range of 6–9 pH

units.

1These benchmark monitoring cutoff concentrations apply to storm water discharges associated with industrial activity other than contaminated

storm water discharges from landfills subject to the numeric effluent limitations set forth in Table K–1. Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and

year 4 monitoring years. 2As set forth at 40 CFR Part 445 Subpart A, these numeric limitations apply to contaminated storm water discharges from hazardous waste

landfills subject to the provisions of RCRA Subtitle C at 40 CFR Parts 264 (Subpart N) and 265 (Subpart N) except for any of the facilities described below:

(a) Landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill only receives wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the landfill;

(b) Landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill receives wastes generated by the industrial

or commercial operation directly associated with the landfill and also receives other wastes provided the other wastes received for disposal are

generated by a facility that is subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the industrial or commercial operation or the other

wastes received are of similar nature to the wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation;

64834 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

(c) Landfills operated in conjunction with Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 437 so long as the CWT facility

commingles the landfill wastewater with other non-landfill wastewater for discharge. A landfill directly associated with a CWT facility is subject to

this part if the CWT facility discharges landfill wastewater separately from other CWT wastewater or commingles the wastewater from its landfill

only with wastewater from other landfills; or

(d) Landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill receives wastes from public service activities so long as the company owning the landfill does not receive a fee or other remuneration for the disposal service.

For the discharges subject to the

numeric effluent limitations, monitoring

for the specified parameters is required

once/year during each year of the term

of the permit.

6.L Sector L—Landfills, Land

Application Sites and Open Dumps

6.L.1 Covered Storm Water Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.L apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Landfills and

Land Application Sites and Open

Dumps as identified by the Activity

Codes specified under Sector L in Table

1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.L.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector L

This permit may authorize storm

water discharges for Sector L facilities

associated with waste disposal at

landfills, land application sites and

open dumps that receive or have

received industrial waste, including

sites subject to regulation under Subtitle

D of RCRA.

6.L.3 Limitations on Coverage

6.L.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.1)

Not authorized by this permit:

leachate, gas collection condensate,

drained free liquids, contaminated

ground water, laboratory wastewater,

and contact washwater from washing

truck and railcar exteriors and surface

areas which have come in direct contact

with solid waste at the landfill facility.

6.L.4 Definitions

6.L.4.1 Contaminated storm water—

storm water which comes in direct

contact with landfill wastes, the waste

handling and treatment areas, or landfill

wastewater. Some specific areas of a

landfill that may produce contaminated

storm water include (but are not limited

to): the open face of an active landfill

with exposed waste (no cover added);

the areas around wastewater treatment

operations; trucks, equipment or

machinery that has been in direct

contact with the waste; and waste

dumping areas.

6.L.4.2 Drained free liquids—

aqueous wastes drained from waste

containers (e.g., drums, etc.) prior to

landfilling.

6.L.4.3 Landfill wastewater—as

defined in 40 CFR Part 445 (Landfills

Point Source Category) all wastewater

associated with, or produced by,

landfilling activities except for sanitary

wastewater, non-contaminated storm

water, contaminated groundwater, and

wastewater from recovery pumping

wells. Landfill process wastewater

includes, but is not limited to, leachate,

gas collection condensate, drained free

liquids, laboratory derived wastewater,

contaminated storm water and contact

washwater from washing truck,

equipment and railcar exteriors and

surface areas which have come in direct

contact with solid waste at the landfill

facility.

6.L.4.4 Leachate—liquid that has

passed through or emerged from solid

waste and contains soluble, suspended

or miscible materials removed from

such waste.

6.L.4.5 Non-contaminated storm

water—storm water which does not

come in direct contact with landfill

wastes, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or landfill wastewater.

Non-contaminated storm water includes

storm water which flows off the cap,

cover, intermediate cover, daily cover,

and/or final cover of the landfill.

6.L.5 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.L.5.1 Drainage Area Site Map. (See

also Part 4.2.2.3)

Identify where any of the following

may be exposed to precipitation/surface

runoff: Active and closed landfill cells

or trenches, active and closed land

application areas, locations where open

dumping is occurring or has occurred,

locations of any known leachate springs

or other areas where uncontrolled

leachate may commingle with runoff,

leachate collection and handling

systems.

6.L.5.2 Summary of Potential

Pollutant Sources. (See also Part 4.2.4)

Describe the following sources and

activities that have potential pollutants

associated with them: fertilizer,

herbicide and pesticide application;

earth/soil moving; waste hauling and

loading/unloading; outdoor storage of

significant materials including daily,

interim and final cover material

stockpiles as well as temporary waste

storage areas; exposure of active and

inactive landfill and land application

areas; uncontrolled leachate flows;

failure or leaks from leachate collection

and treatment systems.

6.L.5.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

As part of your good housekeeping

program, consider providing protected

storage areas for pesticides, herbicides,

fertilizer and other significant materials.

6.L.5.4 Preventative Maintenance

Program. (See also Part 4.2.7.1)

As part of your preventive

maintenance program, maintain: all

containers used for outdoor chemical/

significant materials storage to prevent

leaking; all elements of leachate

collection and treatment systems to

prevent commingling of leachate with

storm water; the integrity and

effectiveness of any intermediate or

final cover (including repairing the

cover as necessary to minimize the

effects of settlement, sinking and

erosion).

6.L.5.5 Inspections.

6.L.5.5.1 Inspections of Active Sites.

(See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.5) Inspect

operating landfills, open dumps and

land application sites at least once every

7 days. Focus on areas of landfills that

have not yet been finally stabilized,

active land application areas, areas used

for storage of material/wastes that are

exposed to precipitation, stabilization

and structural control measures,

leachate collection and treatment

systems, and locations where equipment

and waste trucks enter/exit the site.

Ensure that sediment and erosion

control measures are operating properly.

For stabilized sites and areas where land

application has been completed, or

where the climate is seasonally arid

(annual rainfall averages from 0 to 10

inches) or semi-arid (annual rainfall

averages from 10 to 20 inches), conduct

inspections at least once every month.

6.L.5.5.2 Inspections of Inactive

Sites. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.5) Inspect

inactive landfills, open dumps and land

application sites at least quarterly.

Qualified personnel must inspect

landfill (or open dump) stabilization

and structural erosion control measures

and leachate collection and treatment

systems, and all closed land application

areas.

6.L.5.6 Recordkeeping and Internal

Reporting. Implement a tracking system

for the types of wastes disposed of in

each cell or trench of a landfill or open

dump. For land application sites, track

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64835

the types and quantities of wastes

applied in specific areas.

6.L.5.7 Non-Storm Water Discharge

Test Certification. (See also Part 4.) The

discharge test and certification must

also be conducted for the presence of

leachate and vehicle washwater.

6.L.5.8 Sediment and Erosion

Control Plan. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.2.1)

Provide temporary stabilization (e.g.,

consider temporary seeding, mulching

and placing geotextiles on the inactive

portions of stockpiles): for materials

stockpiled for daily, intermediate and

final cover; for inactive areas of the

landfill or open dump; for any landfill

or open dump area that have gotten final

covers but where vegetation has yet to

established itself; and where waste

application has been completed at land

application sites but final vegetation has

not yet been established.

6.L.5.9 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also Part

4.9.2) Evaluate areas contributing to a

storm water discharge associated with

industrial activities at landfills, open

dumps and land application sites for

evidence of, or the potential for,

pollutants entering the drainage system.

6.L.6 Numeric Limitations,

Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

TABLE L–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation 2

Section of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

All Landfill, Land Application Sites and Open Dumps

(Industrial Activity Code ‘‘LF’’).

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

100 mg/L.

All Landfill, Land Application Sites and Open Dumps,

Except Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF)

Areas Closed in Accordance with 40 CFR 258.60 (Industrial Activity Code ‘‘LF’’).

Total Recoverable Iron ...... 1.0mg/L.

All Landfills Which are Subject to the Requirements of

40 CFR Part 445 Subpart B (Industrial Activity Code

‘‘LF’’).

BOD5 ................................. ............................................ 140 mg/1, daily max.

37 mg/1, monthly ave maximum

TSS .................................... ............................................ 88 mg/l, daily max.

27 mg/1, monthly ave maximum.

Ammonia ........................... ............................................ 10 mg/1, daily max.

4.9 mg/1, monthly ave

maximum.

Alpha Terpineol ................. ............................................ 0.033 mg/1, daily max.

0.016 mg/1, monthly ave

maximum.

Benzoic Acid ...................... ............................................ 0.12 mg/1, daily max.

0.071 mg/1, monthly ave

maximum.

p-Cresol ............................. ............................................ 0.025 mg/1, daily max.

0.014 mg/1, monthly ave

maximum.

Phenol ............................... ............................................ 0.026 mg/1, daily max.

0.015 mg/1, monthly ave

maximum.

Zinc (Total) ........................ ............................................ 0.20 mg/1, daily max.

0.11 mg/1, monthly ave

maximum.

pH ...................................... ............................................ Within the range of 6–9 pH

units.

1These benchmark monitoring cutoff concentrations apply to storm water discharges associated with industrial activity other than contaminated

storm water discharges from landfills subject to the numeric effluent limitations set forth in Table L–1. Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and

year 4 monitoring years. 2As set forth at 40 CFR Part 445 Subpart B, these numeric limitations apply to contaminated storm water discharges from MSWLFs which

have not been closed in accordance with 40 CFR 258.60, and contaminated storm water discharges from those landfills which are subject to the

provisions of 40 CFR Part 257 except for discharges from any of facilities described in (a) through (d) below:

(a) landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill only receives wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the landfill;

(b) landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill receives wastes generated by the industrial

or commercial operation directly associated with the landfill and also receives other wastes provided the other wastes received for disposal are

generated by a facility that is subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the industrial or commercial operation or the other

wastes received are of similar nature to the wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation;

(c) landfills operated in conjunction with Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 437 so long as the CWT facility

commingles the landfill wastewater with other non-landfill wastewater for discharge. A landfill directly associated with a CWT facility is subject to

this part if the CWT facility discharges landfill wastewater separately from other CWT wastewater or commingles the wastewater from its landfill

only with wastewater from other landfills; or

(d) landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill receives wastes from public service activities so long as the company owning the landfill does not receive a fee or other remuneration for the disposal service.

64836 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

For the discharges subject to the

numeric effluent limitations, monitoring

for the specified parameters is required

once/year during each year of the term

of the permit.

6.M Sector M—Automobile Salvage

Yards

6.M.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.M apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Automobile

Salvage Yards as identified by the

Activity Code specified under Sector M

in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.M.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector M

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector M are primarily engaged in

are dismantling or wrecking used motor

vehicles for parts recycling/resale and

for scrap.

6.M.3 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.M.3.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Indicate the

location of each monitoring point, and

estimate the total acreage used for

industrial activity including, but not

limited to, dismantling, storage and

maintenance of used motor vehicle

parts. Also identify where any of the

following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff:

Dismantling areas; parts (e.g., engine

blocks, tires, hub caps, batteries, hoods,

mufflers) storage areas; liquid storage

tanks and drums for fuel and other

fluids.

6.M.3.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Assess the potential

for the following to contribute

pollutants to storm water discharges:

Vehicle storage areas; dismantling areas;

parts storage area (e.g., engine blocks,

tires, hub caps, batteries, hoods,

mufflers); fueling stations.

6.M.3.3 Spill and Leak Prevention

Procedures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.4)

Drain vehicles intended to be

dismantled of all fluids upon arrival at

the site (or as soon thereafter as

feasible); or employ some other

equivalent means to prevent spills/

leaks.

6.M.3.4 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Immediately (or as soon

thereafter as feasible) inspect vehicles

arriving at the site for leaks. Inspect

quarterly for signs of leakage, all

equipment containing oily parts,

hydraulic fluids or any other types of

fluids. Also inspect quarterly for signs

of leakage, all vessels and areas where

fluids are stored, including, but not

limited to, brake fluid, transmission

fluid, radiator water and antifreeze.

6.M.3.5 Employee Training. (See

also Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) If applicable to

your facility, address the following areas

(at a minimum) in your employee

training program: Proper handling

(collection, storage, and disposal) of oil,

used mineral spirits, anti-freeze and

solvents.

6.M.3.6 Management of Runoff. (See

also Part 4.2.7.2.2.2) Consider the

following management practices: Berms

or drainage ditches on the property line

(to help prevent run-on from

neighboring properties); berms for

uncovered outdoor storage of oily parts,

engine blocks and above-ground liquid

storage; installation of detention ponds;

and the installation of filtering devices

and oil/water separators.

6.M.4 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

TABLE M–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation

Sector of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Automobile Salvage Yards (SIC 5015) ........................... Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

Total Recoverable Aluminum.

Total Recoverable Iron ......

Total Recoverable Lead ....

100.0 mg/L.

0.75 mg/L.

1.0 mg/L.

0.0816 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 monitoring years.

6.N Sector N—Scrap Recycling and

Waste Recycling Facilities

6.N.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part N apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Scrap Recycling

and Waste Recycling facilities as

identified by the SIC Codes specified

under Sector N in Table 1–1 of Part

1.2.1.

6.N.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector N

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector N are primarily engaged in

are:

6.N.2.1 processing, reclaiming and

wholesale distribution of scrap and

waste materials such as ferrous and

nonferrous metals, paper, plastic,

cardboard, glass, animal hides;

6.N.2.2 reclaiming and recycling

liquid wastes such as used oil,

antifreeze, mineral spirits and industrial

solvents.

6.N.3 Coverage Under This Permit

Separate permit requirements have

been established for recycling facilities

that only receive source-separated

recyclable materials primarily from nonindustrial and residential sources (i.e.,

common consumer products including

paper, newspaper, glass, cardboard,

plastic containers, aluminum and tin

cans). This includes recycling facilities

commonly referred to as material

recovery facilities (MRF).

6.N.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.2.2)

Not covered by this permit: non-storm

water discharges from turnings

containment areas (see also Part

6.N.5.1.3). Discharges from containment

areas in the absence of a storm event are

prohibited unless covered by a separate

NPDES permit.

6.N.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4 of

the MSGP. Part 6.N.4.1 contains a

requirement that applies to all recycling

facilities and is followed by Parts

6.N.4.2 to 6.N.4.4.4, which have

requirements for specific types of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64837

recycling facilities. Implement and

describe in your SWPPP a program to

address those items that apply. Included

are lists of BMP options which, along

with any functional equivalents, should

be considered for implementation.

Selection or deselection of a particular

BMP or approach is up to the best

professional judgement of the operator,

as long as the objective of the

requirement is met.

6.N.4.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3)

Identify the locations of any of the

following activities or sources which

may be exposed to precipitation/surface

runoff: scrap and waste material storage,

outdoor scrap and waste processing

equipment, and containment areas for

turnings exposed to cutting fluids.

6.N.4.2 Scrap and Waste Recycling

Facilities (Non-Source Separated, NonLiquid Recyclable Materials).

Requirements for facilities that receive,

process and do wholesale distribution of

non-liquid recyclable wastes (e.g.,

ferrous and nonferrous metals, plastics,

glass, cardboard and paper). These

facilities may receive both non

recyclable and recyclable materials.

This section is not intended for those

facilities that only accept recyclables

from primarily non-industrial and

residential sources.

6.N.4.2.1 Inbound Recyclable and

Waste Material Control Program.

Minimize the chance of accepting

materials that could be significant

sources of pollutants by conducting

inspections of inbound recyclables and

waste materials. BMP options: (a)

Provide information/education to

suppliers of scrap and recyclable waste

materials on draining and properly

disposing of residual fluids (e.g., from

vehicles and equipment engines,

radiators and transmissions, oil filled

transformers and individual containers

or drums), prior to delivery to your

facility; (b) procedures to minimize the

potential of any residual fluids from

coming into contact with precipitation/

runoff; (c) procedures for accepting

scrap lead-acid batteries (additional

requirements for the handling, storage

and disposal or recycling of batteries are

contained in the scrap lead-acid battery

program provisions in N.5.1.6); (d)

training targeted for those personnel

engaged in the inspection and

acceptance of inbound recyclable

materials. In addition, (e) liquid wastes,

including used oil, must be stored in

materially compatible and non-leaking

containers and disposed or recycled in

accordance with RCRA.

6.N.4.2.2 Scrap and Waste Material

Stockpiles/Storage (Outdoor). Minimize

contact of storm water runoff with

stockpiled materials, processed

materials and non-recyclable wastes.

BMP options: (a) Permanent or semipermanent covers; (b) to facilitate

settling or filtering of pollutants:

sediment traps, vegetated swales and

strips, catch basin filters and sand

filters; (c) divert runoff away from

storage areas via dikes, berms,

containment trenches, culverts and

surface grading; (d) silt fencing; (e) oil/

water separators, sumps and dry

absorbents for areas where potential

sources of residual fluids are stockpiled

(e.g., automobile engine storage areas).

6.N.4.2.3 Stockpiling of Turnings

Exposed to Cutting Fluids (Outdoor).

Minimize contact of surface runoff with

residual cutting fluids. BMP options

(use singularly or in combination): (a)

Store all turnings exposed to cutting

fluids under some form of permanent or

semi-permanent cover. Storm water

discharges from these areas are

permitted provided the runoff is first

treated by an oil/water separator or its

equivalent. Identify procedures to

collect, handle and dispose/recycle

residual fluids which may be present;

(b) establish dedicated containment

areas for all turnings that have been

exposed to cutting fluids. Storm water

runoff from these areas can be

discharged provided: The containment

areas are constructed of either concrete,

asphalt or other equivalent types of

impermeable material; there is a barrier

around the perimeter of the containment

areas (e.g., berms, curbing, elevated

pads, etc.) to prevent contact with storm

water run-on; there is a drainage

collection system for runoff generated

from containment areas; you have a

schedule to maintain the oil/water

separator (or its equivalent); and you

identify procedures for properly

disposing or recycling collected residual

fluids.

6.N.4.2.4 Scrap and Waste Material

Stockpiles/Storage (Covered or Indoor

Storage). Minimize contact of residual

liquids and particulate matter from

materials stored indoors or under cover

with surface runoff. BMP options: (a)

Good housekeeping measures including

the use of dry absorbent or wet

vacuuming to contain or dispose/recycle

residual liquids originating from

recyclable containers; (b) not allowing

washwater from tipping floors or other

processing areas to discharge to the

storm sewer system; (c) disconnect or

seal off all floor drains connected to the

storm sewer system.

6.N.4.2.5 Scrap and Recyclable

Waste Processing Areas. Minimize

surface runoff from coming in contact

with scrap processing equipment. Pay

attention to operations that generate

visible amounts of particulate residue

(e.g., shredding) to minimize the contact

of accumulated particulate matter and

residual fluids with runoff (i.e., through

good housekeeping, preventive

maintenance, etc.). BMP options: (a)

Regularly inspect equipment for spills/

leaks, and malfunctioning/worn/

corroded parts or equipment; (b) a

preventive maintenance program for

processing equipment; (c) use of dryabsorbents or other cleanup practices to

collect and dispose/recycle spilled/

leaking fluids; (e) on unattended

hydraulic reservoirs over 150 gallons in

capacity, install such protection devices

as low-level alarms or other equivalent

devices, or, alternatively, secondary

containment that can hold the entire

volume of the reservoir; (f) containment

or diversion structures such as dikes,

berms, culverts, trenches, elevated

concrete pads, grading to minimize

contact of storm water runoff with

outdoor processing equipment or stored

materials; (g) oil/water separators or

sumps; (h) permanent or semipermanent covers in processing areas

where there are residual fluids and

grease; (i) retention/detention ponds or

basins; sediment traps, vegetated swales

or strips (for pollutant settling/

filtration); (j) catch basin filters or sand

filters.

6.N.4.2.6 Scrap Lead-Acid Battery

Program. Properly handle, store and

dispose of scrap lead-acid batteries.

BMP options: (a) Segregate scrap leadacid batteries from other scrap

materials; (b) proper handling, storage

and disposal of cracked or broken

batteries; (c) collect and dispose leaking

lead-acid battery fluid; (d) minimize/

eliminate (if possible) exposure of scrap

lead-acid batteries to precipitation or

runoff; (e) employee training for the

management of scrap batteries.

6.N.4.2.7 Spill Prevention and

Response Procedures. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.4) Minimize storm water

contamination at loading/unloading

areas, and from equipment or container

failures. BMP options: (a) Prevention

and response measures for areas that are

potential sources of fluid leaks/spills;

(b) immediate containment and clean up

of spills/leaks. If malfunctioning

equipment is responsible for the spill/

leak, repairs should also be conducted

as soon as possible; (c) cleanup

measures including the use of dry

absorbents. If this method is employed,

there should be an adequate supply of

dry absorbent materials kept onsite and

used absorbent must be properly

disposed of; (d) store drums containing

liquids—especially oil and lubricants—

either: Indoors, in a bermed area, in

overpack containers or spill pallets, or

64838 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

in other containment devices; (e) install

overfill prevention devices on fuel

pumps or tanks; (f) place drip pans or

equivalent measures under leaking

stationary equipment until the leak is

repaired. The drip pans should be

inspected for leaks and potential

overflow and all liquids must be

properly disposed of (as per RCRA); (g)

install alarms and/or pump shut off

systems on outdoor equipment with

hydraulic reservoirs exceeding 150

gallons in the event of a line break.

Alternatively, a secondary containment

system capable of holding the entire

contents of the reservoir plus room for

precipitation can be used.

6.N.4.2.8 Quarterly Inspection

Program. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.5)

Inspect all designated areas of the

facility and equipment identified in the

plan quarterly.

6.N.4.2.9 Supplier Notification

Program. As appropriate, notify major

suppliers which scrap materials will not

be accepted at the facility or are only

accepted under certain conditions.

6.N.4.3 Waste Recycling Facilities

(Liquid Recyclable Materials).

6.N.4.3.1 Waste Material Storage

(Indoor). Minimize/eliminate contact

between residual liquids from waste

materials stored indoors and surface

runoff. The plan may refer to applicable

portions of other existing plans such as

SPCC plans required under 40 CFR Part

112. BMP options: (a) procedures for

material handling (including labeling

and marking); (b) clean up spills/leaks

with dry-absorbent materials or a wet

vacuum system; (c) appropriate

containment structures (trenching,

curbing, gutters, etc.); (d) a drainage

system, including appurtenances (e.g.,

pumps or ejectors, manually operated

valves), to handle discharges from diked

or bermed areas. Drainage should be

discharged to an appropriate treatment

facility, sanitary sewer system, or

otherwise disposed of properly. These

discharges may require coverage under

a separate NPDES wastewater permit or

industrial user permit under the

pretreatment program.

6.N.4.3.2 Waste Material Storage

(Outdoor). Minimize contact between

stored residual liquids and precipitation

or runoff. The plan may refer to

applicable portions of other existing

plans such as SPCC plans required

under 40 CFR Part 112. Discharges of

precipitation from containment areas

containing used oil must also be in

accordance with applicable sections of

40 CFR Part 112. BMP options: (a)

appropriate containment structures (e.g.,

dikes, berms, curbing, pits) to store the

volume of the largest tank with

sufficient extra capacity for

precipitation; (b) drainage control and

other diversionary structures; (c) for

storage tanks, provide corrosion

protection and/or leak detection

systems; (d) use dry-absorbent materials

or a wet vacuum system to collect spills.

6.N.4.3.3 Trucks and Rail Car Waste

Transfer Areas. Minimize pollutants in

discharges from truck and rail car

loading/unloading areas. Include

measures to clean up minor spills/leaks

resulting from the transfer of liquid

wastes. BMP options: (a) containment

and diversionary structures to minimize

contact with precipitation or runoff; (b)

use dry-clean up methods, wet

vacuuming, roof coverings, or runoff

controls.

6.N.4.3.4 Quarterly Inspections. (See

also Part 4.2.7.2.1.5) At a minimum, the

inspections must also include all areas

where waste is generated, received,

stored, treated or disposed and that are

exposed to either precipitation or storm

water runoff.

6.N.4.4 Recycling Facilities (Source

Separated Materials). The following

identifies considerations for facilities

that receive only source-separated

recyclables, primarily from nonindustrial and residential sources.

6.N.4.4.1 Inbound Recyclable

Material Control. Minimize the chance

of accepting non-recyclables (e.g.,

hazardous materials) which could be a

significant source of pollutants by

conducting inspections of inbound

materials. BMP options: (a) information/

education measures to inform suppliers

of recyclables which materials are

acceptable and which are not; (b)

training drivers responsible for pickup

of recycled material; (c) clearly marking

public drop-off containers regarding

which materials can be accepted; (d)

reject non-recyclable wastes or

household hazardous wastes at the

source; (e) procedures for handling and

disposal of non-recyclable material.

6.N.4.4.2 Outdoor Storage. Minimize

exposure of recyclables to precipitation

and runoff. Use good housekeeping

measures to prevent accumulation of

particulate matter and fluids,

particularly in high traffic areas. Other

BMP options: (a) provide totallyenclosed drop-off containers for the

public; (b) install a sump/pump with

each container pit and treat or discharge

collected fluids to a sanitary sewer

system; (c) provide dikes and curbs for

secondary containment (e.g., around

bales of recyclable waste paper); (d)

divert surface water runoff away from

outside material storage areas; (e)

provide covers over containment bins,

dumpsters, roll-off boxes; (f) store the

equivalent one days’s volume of

recyclable material indoors.

6.N.4.4.3 Indoor Storage and

Material Processing. Minimize the

release of pollutants from indoor storage

and processing areas. BMP options: (a)

schedule routine good housekeeping

measures for all storage and processing

areas; (b) prohibit tipping floor

washwater from draining to the storm

sewer system; (c) provide employee

training on pollution prevention

practices.

6.N.4.4.4 Vehicle and Equipment

Maintenance. BMP options for those

areas where vehicle and equipment

maintenance are occurring outdoors: (a)

prohibit vehicle and equipment

washwater from discharging to the

storm sewer system; (b) minimize or

eliminate outdoor maintenance areas

whenever possible; (c) establish spill

prevention and clean-up procedures in

fueling areas; (d) avoid topping off fuel

tanks; (e) divert runoff from fueling

areas; (f) store lubricants and hydraulic

fluids indoors; (g) provide employee

training on proper handling, storage of

hydraulic fluids and lubricants.

6.N.5 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64839

TABLE N–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration1 Numeric limitation

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Scrap Recycling Facility (SIC 5093) ............................... Chemical Oxygen Demand

(COD).

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

Total Recoverable Aluminum.

Total Recoverable Copper

Total Recoverable Iron ......

Total Recoverable Lead ....

Total Recoverable Zinc .....

120 mg/L.

100 mg/L.

0.75 mg/L.

0.0636 mg/L.

1.0 mg/L.

0.0816 mg/L.

0.117 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

6.O Sector O—Steam Electric

Generating Facilities

6.O.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.O apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Steam Electric

Power Generating Facilities as identified

by the Activity Code specified under

Sector O in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.O.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector O

This permit authorizes storm water

discharges from the following industrial

activities at Sector O facilities:

6.O.2.1 Steam electric power

generation using coal, natural gas, oil,

nuclear energy, etc. to produce a steam

source, including coal handling areas;

6.O.2.2 Coal pile runoff, including

effluent limitations established by 40

CFR Part 423;

6.O.2.3 Dual fuel co-generation

facilities.

6.O.3 Limitations on Coverage

6.O.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. Not covered by this

permit: non-storm water discharges

subject to effluent limitations

guidelines.

6.O.3.2 Prohibition of Storm Water

Discharges. Not covered by this permit:

storm water discharges from ancillary

facilities (e.g., fleet centers, gas turbine

stations and substations) that are not

contiguous to a stream electric power

generating facility; and heat capture cogeneration facilities.

6.O.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.O.4.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify the

locations of any of the following

activities or sources which may be

exposed to precipitation / surface

runoff: storage tanks, scrap yards,

general refuse areas; short and long term

storage of general materials (including

but not limited to: supplies,

construction materials, paint

equipment, oils, fuels, used and unused

solvents, cleaning materials, paint,

water treatment chemicals, fertilizer and

pesticides); landfills, construction sites;

stock piles areas (e.g., coal or limestone

piles).

6.O.4.2 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.O.4.2.1 Fugitive Dust Emissions.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize fugitive dust

emissions from coal handling areas.

Consider such procedures to minimize

the tracking of coal dust offsite as

installing specially designed tires, or

washing vehicles in a designated area

before they leave the site and

controlling the wash water.

6.O.4.2.2 Delivery Vehicles. Describe

and implement measures that prevent or

minimize contamination of storm water

runoff from delivery vehicles arriving at

the plant site. Consider the following:

procedures to inspect delivery vehicles

arriving at the plant site and ensure

overall integrity of the body or

container; and procedures to deal with

leakage / spillage from vehicles or

containers.

6.O.4.2.3 Fuel Oil Unloading Areas.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

precipitation / surface runoff from fuel

oil unloading areas. Consider, at a

minimum (or their equivalents): using

containment curbs in unloading areas;

having personnel familiar with spill

prevention and response procedures

present during deliveries to ensure that

any leaks / spills are immediately

contained and cleaned up; using spill

and overflow protection (e.g., drip pans,

drip diapers or other containment

devices placed beneath fuel oil

connectors to contain potential spillage

during deliveries or from leaks at the

connectors).

6.O.4.2.4 Chemical Loading /

Unloading. Describe and implement

measures that prevent or minimize

contamination of precipitation / surface

runoff from chemical loading /

unloading areas. Consider, at a

minimum (or their equivalents): using

containment curbs at chemical loading

/ unloading areas to contain spill;

having personnel familiar with spill

prevention and response procedures

present during deliveries to ensure that

any leaks / spills are immediately

contained and cleaned up; and load /

unload in covered areas and store

chemicals indoors.

6.O.4.2.5 Miscellaneous Loading /

Unloading Areas. Describe and

implement measures that prevent or

minimize contamination of

precipitation / surface runoff from

loading / unloading areas. Consider, at

a minimum (or their equivalents):

covering the loading area; grading,

berming, or curbing around the loading

area to divert run-on; or locating the

loading / unloading equipment and

vehicles so leaks are contained in

existing containment and flow diversion

systems.

6.O.4.2.6 Liquid Storage Tanks.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

surface runoff from above ground liquid

storage tanks. Consider using, at a

minimum (or their equivalents):

protective guards around tank;

containment curbs; spill and overflow

protection; and dry cleanup methods.

6.O.4.2.7 Large Bulk Fuel Storage

Tanks. Describe and implement

measures that prevent or minimize

contamination of surface runoff from

large bulk fuel storage tanks. Consider,

64840 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

at a minimum, using containment berms

(or its equivalent). You must also

comply with applicable State and

Federal laws, including Spill Prevention

Control and Countermeasures (SPCC).

6.O.4.2.8 Spill Reduction Measures.

Describe and implement measures to

reduce the potential for an oil /

chemical spill or reference the

appropriate Part of your SPCC plan. At

a minimum, visually inspect on a

weekly basis, the structural integrity of

all above ground tanks, pipelines,

pumps and other related equipment,

and effect any necessary repairs

immediately.

6.O.4.2.9 Oil Bearing Equipment in

Switchyards. Describe and implement

measures that prevent or minimize

contamination of surface runoff from oil

bearing equipment in switchyard areas.

Consider using level grades and gravel

surfaces to retard flows and limit the

spread of spills or collecting runoff in

perimeter ditches.

6.O.4.2.10 Residue Hauling

Vehicles. Inspect all residue hauling

vehicles for proper covering over the

load, adequate gate sealing and overall

integrity of the container body. Repair

as soon as practicable, vehicles without

load covering or adequate gate sealing,

or with leaking containers or beds.

6.O.4.2.11 Ash Loading Areas.

Describe and implement procedures to

reduce or control the tracking of ash/

residue from ash loading areas. Where

practicable, clear the ash building floor

and immediately adjacent roadways of

spillage, debris and excess water before

departure of each loaded vehicle.

6.O.4.2.12 Areas Adjacent to

Disposal Ponds or Landfills. Describe

and implement measures that prevent or

minimize contamination of surface

runoff from areas adjacent to disposal

ponds or landfills. Develop procedures

to reduce ash residue that may be

tracked on to access roads traveled by

residue handling vehicles, and reduce

ash residue on exit roads leading into

and out of residue handling areas.

6.O.4.2.13 Landfills, Scrap Yards,

Surface Impoundments, Open Dumps,

General Refuse Sites.

Address these areas in your SWPPP

and include appropriate BMPs as

referred to in Part 4.

6.O.4.2.14 Vehicle Maintenance

Activities. For vehicle maintenance

activities performed on the plant site,

use the applicable BMPs outlined in

Part 6.P.

6.O.4.2.15 Material Storage Areas.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

storm water runoff from material storage

areas (including areas used for

temporary storage of miscellaneous

products and construction materials

stored in lay-down areas). Consider

using (or their equivalents): Flat yard

grades; collecting runoff in graded

swales or ditches; erosion protection

measures at steep outfall sites (e.g.,

concrete chutes, riprap, stilling basins);

covering lay-down areas; storing

materials indoors; and covering

materials temporarily with

polyethylene, polyurethane,

polypropylene or hypalon. Storm water

run-on may be minimized by

constructing an enclosure or building a

berm around the area.

6.O.4.3 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also Part

4.9.3) As part of your evaluation,

inspect the following areas on a

monthly basis: Coal handling areas,

loading/unloading areas, switchyards,

fueling areas, bulk storage areas, ash

handling areas, areas adjacent to

disposal ponds and landfills,

maintenance areas, liquid storage tanks,

and long term and short term material

storage areas.

6.O.5 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

TABLE O–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric Limitation 2

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Steam Electric Generating Facilities (Industrial Activity

Code ‘‘SE’’).

Total Recoverable Iron ...... 1.0 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

2 Note that the numeric effluent limitation guidelines for coal pile runoff at steam electric generating facilities have been adopted as a standard

numeric limits for all coal pile runoff. See Part 5.1.3.

6.P Sector P—Land Transportation

and Warehousing

6.P.1 Covered Storm Water Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.P apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Land

Transportation and Warehousing

facilities as identified by the Activity

Code specified under Sector P in Table

1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.P.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector P

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector P are primarily engaged in

are:

6.P.2.1 vehicle and equipment

maintenance (vehicle and equipment

rehabilitation, mechanical repairs,

painting, fueling and lubrication);

6.P.2.2 equipment cleaning.

6.P.3 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.P.3.1 Drainage Site Map. (See also

Part 4.2.2.3) Identify the locations of any

of the following activities or sources:

Fueling stations; vehicle/equipment

maintenance or cleaning areas; storage

areas for vehicle/equipment with actual

or potential fluid leaks; loading/

unloading areas; areas where treatment,

storage or disposal of wastes occur;

liquid storage tanks; processing areas;

storage areas; and all monitoring areas.

6.P.3.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Describe and assess

the potential for the following to

contribute pollutants to storm water

discharges: Onsite waste storage or

disposal; dirt/gravel parking areas for

vehicles awaiting maintenance; and

fueling areas.

6.P.3.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.P.3.3.1 Vehicle and Equipment

Storage Areas. Confine the storage of

leaky or leak-prone vehicles/equipment

awaiting maintenance to designated

areas. Consider the following (or other

equivalent measures): The use of drip

pans under vehicles/equipment, indoor

storage of vehicles and equipment,

installation of berms or dikes, use of

absorbents, roofing or covering storage

areas, and cleaning pavement surfaces

to remove oil and grease.

6.P.3.3.2 Fueling Areas. Implement

and describe measures that prevent or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64841

minimize contamination of storm water

runoff from fueling areas. Consider the

following (or other equivalent

measures): Covering the fueling area;

using spill/overflow protection and

cleanup equipment; minimizing storm

water runon/runoff to the fueling area;

using dry cleanup methods; and treating

and/or recycling collected storm water

runoff.

6.P.3.3.3 Material Storage Areas.

Maintain all material storage vessels

(e.g., for used oil/oil filters, spent

solvents, paint wastes, hydraulic fluids)

to prevent contamination of storm water

and plainly label them (e.g., ‘‘Used Oil,’’

‘‘Spent Solvents,’’ etc.). Consider the

following (or other equivalent

measures): storing the materials indoors;

installing berms/dikes around the areas;

minimizing runoff of storm water to the

areas; using dry cleanup methods; and

treating and/or recycling collected storm

water runoff.

6.P.3.3.4 Vehicle and Equipment

Cleaning Areas. Implement and describe

measures that prevent or minimize

contamination of storm water runoff

from all areas used for vehicle/

equipment cleaning. Consider the

following (or other equivalent

measures): performing all cleaning

operations indoors; covering the

cleaning operation, ensuring that all

washwater drains to a proper collection

system (i.e., not the storm water

drainage system unless NPDES

permitted); treating and/or recycling

collected storm water runoff, or other

equivalent measures. Note: the

discharge of vehicle/equipment

washwater, including tank cleaning

operations, are not authorized by this

permit and must be covered under a

separate NPDES permit or discharged to

a sanitary sewer in accordance with

applicable industrial pretreatment

requirements.

6.P.3.3.5 Vehicle and Equipment

Maintenance Areas. Implement and

describe measures that prevent or

minimize contamination of storm water

runoff from all areas used for vehicle/

equipment maintenance. Consider the

following (or other equivalent

measures): performing maintenance

activities indoors; using drip pans;

keeping an organized inventory of

materials used in the shop; draining all

parts of fluid prior to disposal;

prohibiting wet clean up practices if

these practices would result in the

discharge of pollutants to storm water

drainage systems; using dry cleanup

methods; treating and/or recycling

collected storm water runoff,

minimizing run on/runoff of storm

water to maintenance areas.

6.P.3.3.6 Locomotive Sanding

(Loading Sand for Traction) Areas.

Consider the following (or other

equivalent measures): covering sanding

areas; minimizing storm water run on/

runoff; or appropriate sediment removal

practices to minimize the offsite

transport of sanding material by storm

water.

6.P.3.4 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Inspect all the following

areas/activities: storage areas for

vehicles/equipment awaiting

maintenance, fueling areas, indoor and

outdoor vehicle/equipment

maintenance areas, material storage

areas, vehicle/equipment cleaning areas

and loading/unloading areas.

6.P.3.5 Employee Training. (See also

Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) Train personnel at least

once a year and address the following,

as applicable: used oil and spent solvent

management; fueling procedures;

general good housekeeping practices;

proper painting procedures; and used

battery management.

6.P.3.6 Vehicle and Equipment

Washwater Requirements. (See also Part

4.4) Attach to or reference in your

SWPPP, a copy of the NPDES permit

issued for vehicle/equipment washwater

or, if an NPDES permit has not been

issued, a copy of the pending

application. If an industrial user permit

is issued under a pretreatment program,

attach a copy to your SWPPP. In any

case, address all non-storm water permit

conditions or pretreatment conditions in

your SWPPP. If washwater is handled in

another manner (e.g., hauled offsite),

describe the disposal method and attach

all pertinent documentation/

information (e.g., frequency, volume,

destination, etc.) in the plan.

6.Q Sector Q—Water Transportation

6.Q.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.Q apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Water

Transportation facilities as identified by

the Activity Code specified under Sector

Q in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.Q.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector Q

The requirements listed under this

Part apply to storm water discharges

associated with the following activities:

6.Q.2.1 Water transportation

facilities classified in SIC Code major

group 44 that have vehicle (vessel)

maintenance shops and/or equipment

cleaning operations including:

6.Q.2.1.1 Water transportation

industry includes facilities engaged in

foreign or domestic transport of freight

or passengers in deep sea or inland

waters;

6.Q.2.1.2 Marine cargo handling

operations;

6.Q.2.1.3 Ferry operations;

6.Q.2.1.4 Towing and tugboat

services;

6.Q.2.1.5 Marinas.

6.Q.3 Limitations on Coverage

6.Q.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.1)

Not covered by this permit: bilge and

ballast water, sanitary wastes, pressure

wash water and cooling water

originating from vessels.

6.Q.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.Q.4.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where

any of the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: fueling;

engine maintenance/repair; vessel

maintenance/repair; pressure washing;

painting; sanding; blasting; welding;

metal fabrication; loading/unloading

areas; locations used for the treatment,

storage or disposal of wastes; liquid

storage tanks; liquid storage areas (e.g.,

paint, solvents, resins); and material

storage areas (e.g., blasting media,

aluminum, steel, scrap iron).

6.Q.4.2 Summary of Potential

Pollutant Sources. (See also Part 4.2.4)

Describe the following additional

sources and activities that have

potential pollutants associated with

them: outdoor manufacturing or

processing activities (i.e., welding,

metal fabricating); and significant dust

or particulate generating processes (e.g.,

abrasive blasting, sanding, painting).

6.Q.4.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.Q.4.3.1 Pressure Washing Area. If

pressure washing is used to remove

marine growth from vessels, the

discharge water must be permitted by a

separate NPDES permit. Describe in the

SWPPP: the measures to collect or

contain the discharges from the

pressures washing area; the method for

the removal of the visible solids; the

methods of disposal of the collected

solids; and where the discharge will be

released.

6.Q.4.3.2 Blasting and Painting

Area. Implement and describe measures

to prevent spent abrasives, paint chips

and over spray from discharging into the

receiving water or the storm sewer

systems. Consider containing all

blasting/painting activities or use other

measures to prevent or minimize the

discharge the contaminants (e.g.,

64842 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

hanging plastic barriers or tarpaulins

during blasting or painting operations to

contain debris). Where necessary,

regularly clean storm water conveyances

of deposits of abrasive blasting debris

and paint chips. Detail in the SWPPP

any standard operating practices

relating to blasting/painting (e.g.,

prohibiting uncontained blasting/

painting over open water, or prohibiting

blasting/painting during windy

conditions which can render

containment ineffective).

6.Q.4.3.3 Material Storage Areas.

Store and plainly label all containerized

materials (e.g., fuels, paints, solvents,

waste oil, antifreeze, batteries) in a

protected, secure location away from

drains. Implement and describe

measures to prevent or minimize the

contamination of precipitation/surface

runoff from the storage areas. Specify

which materials are stored indoors and

consider containment or enclosure for

those stored outdoors. If abrasive

blasting is performed, discus the storage

and disposal of spent abrasive materials

generated at the facility. Consider

implementing an inventory control plan

to limit the presence of potentially

hazardous materials onsite.

6.Q.4.3.4 Engine Maintenance and

Repair Areas. Implement and describe

measures to prevent or minimize the

contamination of precipitation/surface

runoff from all areas used for engine

maintenance and repair. Consider the

following (or their equivalents):

performing all maintenance activities

indoors; maintaining an organized

inventory of materials used in the shop;

draining all parts of fluid prior to

disposal; prohibiting the practice of

hosing down the shop floor; using dry

cleanup methods; and treating and/or

recycling storm water runoff collected

from the maintenance area.

6.Q.4.3.5 Material Handling Area.

Implement and describe measures to

prevent or minimize the contamination

of precipitation/surface runoff from

material handling operations and areas

(e.g., fueling, paint and solvent mixing,

disposal of process wastewater streams

from vessels). Consider the following (or

their equivalents): covering fueling

areas; using spill/overflow protection;

mixing paints and solvents in a

designated area (preferably indoors or

under a shed); and minimize runoff of

storm water to material handling areas.

6.Q.4.3.6 Drydock Activities.

Describe your procedures for routinely

maintaining/cleaning the drydock to

prevent or minimize pollutants in storm

water runoff. Address the cleaning of

accessible areas of the drydock prior to

flooding, and final cleanup following

removal of the vessel and raising the

dock. Include procedures for cleaning

up oil, grease or fuel spills occurring on

the drydock. Consider the following (or

their equivalents): sweeping rather than

hosing off debris/spent blasting material

from accessible areas of the drydock

prior to flooding, and having absorbent

materials and oil containment booms

readily available to contain/cleanup any

spills.

6.Q.4.3.7 General Yard Area.

Implement and describe a schedule for

routine yard maintenance and cleanup.

Regularly remove from the general yard

area: scrap metal, wood, plastic,

miscellaneous trash, paper, glass,

industrial scrap, insulation, welding

rods, packaging, etc.

6.Q.4.4 Preventative Maintenance.

(See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.4) As part of your

preventive maintenance program,

perform timely inspection and

maintenance of storm water

management devices (e.g., cleaning oil/

water separators and sediment traps to

ensure that spent abrasives, paint chips

and solids will be intercepted and

retained prior to entering the storm

drainage system) as well as inspecting

and testing facility equipment and

systems to uncover conditions that

could cause breakdowns or failures

resulting in discharges of pollutants to

surface waters.

6.Q.4.5 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Include the following areas

in all monthly inspections: pressure

washing area; blasting, sanding and

painting areas; material storage areas;

engine maintenance/repair areas;

material handling areas; drydock area;

and general yard area.

6.Q.4.6 Employee Training. (See also

Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) As part of your

employee training program, address, at

a minimum, the following activities (as

applicable): used oil management; spent

solvent management; disposal of spent

abrasives; disposal of vessel

wastewaters; spill prevention and

control; fueling procedures; general

good housekeeping practices; painting

and blasting procedures; and used

battery management.

6.Q.4.7 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also Part

4.9) Conduct regularly scheduled

evaluations at least once a year and

address those areas contributing to a

storm water discharge associated with

industrial activity (e.g., pressure

washing area, blasting/sanding areas,

painting areas, material storage areas,

engine maintenance/repair areas,

material handling areas, and drydock

area). Inspect these sources for evidence

of, or the potential for, pollutants

entering the drainage system.

6.Q.5 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

TABLE Q–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration 1 Numeric limitation

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Water Transportation Facilities (SIC 4412–4499) ........... Total Recoverable Aluminum..

Total Recoverable Iron. .....

Total Recoverable Lead. ...

Total Recoverable Zinc. ....

0.75 mg/L ..........................

1.0 mg/L ............................

0.0816 mg/L ......................

0.117 mg/L ........................

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64843

3According to the U.S. Coast Guard, a vessel 65

feet or greater in length is referred to as a ship, and

a vessel smaller than 65 feet is a boat.

6.R Sector R—Ship and Boat Building

or Repair Yards

6.R.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.R apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Ship and Boat

Building or Repair Yards as identified

by the Activity Codes specified under

Sector R in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.R.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector R

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector R are primarily engaged in

are:

6.R.2.1 Ship building and repairing

and boat building and repairing 3

6.R.3 Limitations on Coverage

6.R.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.1)

Not covered by this permit: discharges

containing bilge and ballast water,

sanitary wastes, pressure wash water

and cooling water originating from

vessels.

6.R.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.R.4.1 Drainage Area Site Map. (See

also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where any of

the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: fueling;

engine maintenance/repair; vessel

maintenance/repair; pressure washing;

painting; sanding; blasting; welding;

metal fabrication; loading/unloading

areas; locations used for the treatment,

storage or disposal of wastes; liquid

storage tanks; liquid storage areas (e.g.,

paint, solvents, resins); and material

storage areas (e.g., blasting media,

aluminum, steel, scrap iron).

6.R.4.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Describe the

following additional sources and

activities that have potential pollutants

associated with them (if applicable):

outdoor manufacturing/processing

activities (e.g., welding, metal

fabricating); and significant dust/

particulate generating processes (e.g.,

abrasive blasting, sanding, painting).

6.R.4.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.R.4.3.1 Pressure Washing Area. If

pressure washing is used to remove

marine growth from vessels, the

discharge water must be permitted as a

process wastewater by a separate

NPDES permit.

6.R.4.3.2 Blasting and Painting Area.

Implement and describe measures to

prevent spent abrasives, paint chips and

over spray from discharging into the

receiving water or the storm sewer

systems. Consider containing all

blasting/painting activities or use other

measures to prevent the discharge of the

contaminants (e.g., hanging plastic

barriers or tarpaulins during blasting or

painting operations to contain debris).

Where necessary, regularly clean storm

water conveyances of deposits of

abrasive blasting debris and paint chips.

Detail in the SWPPP any standard

operating practices relating to blasting/

painting (e.g., prohibiting uncontained

blasting/painting over open water, or

prohibiting blasting/painting during

windy conditions which can render

containment ineffective).

6.R.4.3.3 Material Storage Areas.

Store and plainly label all containerized

materials (e.g., fuels, paints, solvents,

waste oil, antifreeze, batteries) in a

protected, secure location away from

drains. Implement and describe

measures to prevent or minimize the

contamination of precipitation/surface

runoff from the storage areas. Specify

which materials are stored indoors and

consider containment or enclosure for

those stored outdoors. If abrasive

blasting is performed, discuss the

storage and disposal of spent abrasive

materials generated at the facility.

Consider implementing an inventory

control plan to limit the presence of

potentially hazardous materials onsite.

6.R.4.3.4 Engine Maintenance and

Repair Areas. Implement and describe

measures to prevent or minimize the

contamination of precipitation/surface

runoff from all areas used for engine

maintenance and repair. Consider the

following (or their equivalents):

performing all maintenance activities

indoors; maintaining an organized

inventory of materials used in the shop;

draining all parts of fluid prior to

disposal; prohibiting the practice of

hosing down the shop floor; using dry

cleanup methods; and treating and/or

recycling storm water runoff collected

from the maintenance area.

6.R.4.3.5 Material Handling Area.

Implement and describe measures to

prevent or minimize the contamination

of precipitation/surface runoff from

material handling operations and areas

(e.g., fueling, paint and solvent mixing,

disposal of process wastewater streams

from vessels). Consider the following (or

their equivalents): covering fueling

areas; using spill/overflow protection;

mixing paints and solvents in a

designated area (preferably indoors or

under a shed); and minimize runon of

storm water to material handling areas.

6.R.4.3.6 Drydock Activities.

Describe your procedures for routinely

maintaining/cleaning the drydock to

prevent or minimize pollutants in storm

water runoff. Address the cleaning of

accessible areas of the drydock prior to

flooding, and final cleanup following

removal of the vessel and raising the

dock. Include procedures for cleaning

up oil, grease or fuel spills occurring on

the drydock. Consider the following (or

their equivalents): sweeping rather than

hosing off debris/spent blasting material

from accessible areas of the drydock

prior to flooding, and having absorbent

materials and oil containment booms

readily available to contain/cleanup any

spills.

6.R.4.3.7 General Yard Area.

Implement and describe a schedule for

routine yard maintenance and cleanup.

Regularly remove from the general yard

area: scrap metal, wood, plastic,

miscellaneous trash, paper, glass,

industrial scrap, insulation, welding

rods, packaging, etc.

6.R.4.4 Preventative Maintenance.

(See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.4) As part of your

preventive maintenance program,

perform timely inspection and

maintenance of storm water

management devices (e.g., cleaning oil/

water separators and sediment traps to

ensure that spent abrasives, paint chips

and solids will be intercepted and

retained prior to entering the storm

drainage system) as well as inspecting

and testing facility equipment and

systems to uncover conditions that

could cause breakdowns or failures

resulting in discharges of pollutants to

surface waters.

6.R.4.5 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Include the following areas

in all monthly inspections: pressure

washing area; blasting, sanding and

painting areas; material storage areas;

engine maintenance/repair areas;

material handling areas; drydock area;

and general yard area.

6.R.4.6 Employee Training. (See also

Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) As part of your

employee training program, address, at

a minimum, the following activities (as

applicable): used oil management; spent

solvent management; disposal of spent

abrasives; disposal of vessel

wastewaters; spill prevention and

control; fueling procedures; general

good housekeeping practices; painting

and blasting procedures; and used

battery management.

6.R.4.7 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also Part

4.9) Conduct regularly scheduled

evaluations at least once a year and

address those areas contributing to a

storm water discharge associated with

industrial activity (e.g., pressure

64844 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

washing area, blasting/sanding areas,

painting areas, material storage areas,

engine maintenance/repair areas,

material handling areas, and drydock

area). They must be visually inspected

for evidence of, or the potential for,

pollutants entering the drainage system.

6.S Sector S—Air Transportation

6.S.1 Covered Storm Water Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.S apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Air

Transportation facilities as identified by

the SIC Codes specified under Sector S

in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.S.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector S

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector S are primarily engaged in

are:

6.S.2.1 Air transportation,

scheduled, and air courier;

6.S.2.2 Air transportation, non

scheduled;

6.S.2.3 Airports; flying fields, except

those maintained by aviation clubs; and

airport terminal services including: air

traffic control, except government;

aircraft storage at airports; aircraft

upholstery repair; airfreight handling at

airports; airport hangar rental; airport

leasing, if operating airport; airport

terminal services; and hangar

operations.

6.S.2.4 Airport and aircraft service

and maintenance including: aircraft

cleaning and janitorial service; aircraft

servicing/repairing, except on a factory

basis; vehicle maintenance shops;

material handling facilities; equipment

clearing operations; and airport and

aircraft deicing/anti-icing.

Note: ‘‘deicing’’ will generally be used to

imply both deicing (removing frost, snow or

ice) and anti-icing (preventing accumulation

of frost, snow or ice) activities, unless

specific mention is made regarding anti-icing

and/or deicing activities.

6.S.3 Limitations on Coverage

Only those portions of the facility that

are involved in vehicle maintenance

(including vehicle rehabilitation,

mechanical repairs, painting, fueling

and lubrication), equipment cleaning

operations or deicing operations are

addressed in Part 6.S.

6.S.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.1)

Not covered by this permit: aircraft,

ground vehicle, runway and equipment

washwaters; and dry weather discharges

of deicing chemicals. These discharges

must be covered by a separate NPDES

permit.

6.S.4 Special Conditions

6.S.4.1 Hazardous Substances or

Oil. (See also Part 3.1) Each individual

permittee is required to report spills

equal to or exceeding the reportable

quantity (RQ) levels specified at 40 CFR

110, 117 and 302 as described at Part

3.2. If an airport authority is the sole

permittee, then the sum total of all spills

at the airport must be assessed against

the RQ. If the airport authority is a copermittee with other deicing operators

at the airport, such as numerous

different airlines, the assessed amount

must be the summation of spills by each

co-permittee. If separate, distinct

individual permittees exist at the

airport, then the amount spilled by each

separate permittee must be the assessed

amount for the RQ determination.

6.S.5 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4 of

the MSGP.

(See also Part 4.1) If an airport’s

tenant has a SWPPP for discharges from

their own areas of the airport, that

SWPPP must be integrated with the plan

for the entire airport. Tenants of the

airport facility include air passenger or

cargo companies, fixed based operators

and other parties who have contracts

with the airport authority to conduct

business operations on airport property

and whose operations result in storm

water discharges associated with

industrial activity.

6.S.5.1 Drainage Area Site Map. (See

also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where any of

the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: aircraft and

runway deicing operations; fueling

stations; aircraft, ground vehicle and

equipment maintenance/cleaning areas;

storage areas for aircraft, ground

vehicles and equipment awaiting

maintenance.

6.S.5.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Include in your

inventory of exposed materials a

description of the potential pollutant

sources from the following activities:

aircraft, runway, ground vehicle and

equipment maintenance and cleaning;

aircraft and runway deicing operations

(including apron and centralized aircraft

deicing stations, runways, taxiways and

ramps). If you use deicing chemicals,

you must maintain a record of the types

(including the Material Safety Data

Sheets [MSDS]) used and the monthly

quantities, either as measured or, in the

absence of metering, as estimated to the

best of your knowledge. This includes

all deicing chemicals, not just glycols

and urea (e.g., potassium acetate),

because large quantities of these other

chemicals can still have an adverse

impact on receiving waters. Tenants or

other fixed-based operations that

conduct deicing operations must

provide the above information to the

airport authority for inclusion in any

comprehensive airport SWPPPs.

6.S.5.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also 4.2.7)

6.S.5.3.1 Aircraft, Ground Vehicle

and Equipment Maintenance Areas.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize the contamination

of storm water runoff from all areas used

for aircraft, ground vehicle and

equipment maintenance (including the

maintenance conducted on the terminal

apron and in dedicated hangers).

Consider the following practices (or

their equivalents): performing

maintenance activities indoors;

maintaining an organized inventory of

material used in the maintenance areas;

draining all parts of fluids prior to

disposal; preventing the practice of

hosing down the apron or hanger floor;

using dry cleanup methods; and

collecting the storm water runoff from

the maintenance area and providing

treatment or recycling.

6.S.5.3.2 Aircraft, Ground Vehicle

and Equipment Cleaning Areas. Clean

equipment only in the areas identified

in the SWPPP and site map and clearly

demarcate these areas on the ground.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize the contamination

of storm water runoff from cleaning

areas.

6.S.5.3.3 Aircraft, Ground Vehicle

and Equipment Storage Areas. Store all

aircraft, ground vehicles and equipment

awaiting maintenance in designated

areas only. Consider the following BMPs

(or their equivalents): storing aircraft

and ground vehicles indoors; using drip

pans for the collection of fluid leaks;

and perimeter drains, dikes or berms

surrounding the storage areas.

6.S.5.3.4 Material Storage Areas.

Maintain the vessels of stored materials

(e.g., used oils, hydraulic fluids, spent

solvents, and waste aircraft fuel) in good

condition, to prevent or minimize

contamination of storm water. Also

plainly label the vessels (e.g., ‘‘used

oil,’’ ‘‘Contaminated Jet A,’’ etc.).

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

precipitation/runoff from these areas.

Consider the following BMPs (or their

equivalents): storing materials indoors;

storing waste materials in a centralized

location; and installing berms/dikes

around storage areas.

6.S.5.3.5 Airport Fuel System and

Fueling Areas. Describe and implement

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64845

measures that prevent or minimize the

discharge of fuel to the storm sewer/

surface waters resulting from fuel

servicing activities or other operations

conducted in support of the airport fuel

system. Consider the following BMPs

(or their equivalents): implementing

spill and overflow practices (e.g.,

placing absorptive materials beneath

aircraft during fueling operations); using

dry cleanup methods; and collecting

storm water runoff.

6.S.5.3.6 Source Reduction.

Consider alternatives to the use of urea

and glycol-based deicing chemicals to

reduce the aggregate amount of deicing

chemicals used and/or lessen the

environmental impact. Chemical

options to replace ethylene glycol,

propylene glycol and urea include:

potassium acetate; magnesium acetate;

calcium acetate; anhydrous sodium

acetate.

6.S.5.3.6.1 Runway Deicing

Operation: Evaluate, at a minimum,

whether over-application of deicing

chemicals occurs by analyzing

application rates and adjusting as

necessary, consistent with

considerations of flight safety. Also

consider these BMP options (or their

equivalents): metered application of

chemicals; pre-wetting dry chemical

constituents prior to application;

installing a runway ice detection

system; implementing anti-icing

operations as a preventive measure

against ice buildup.

6.S.5.3.6.2 Aircraft Deicing

Operations: As in Part 6.S.5.3.6.1,

determine whether excessive

application of deicing chemicals occurs

and adjust as necessary, consistent with

considerations of flight safety. EPA

intends for this evaluation to be carried

out by the personnel most familiar with

the particular aircraft and flight

operations in question (vice an outside

entity such as the airport authority).

Consider using alternative deicing/antiicing agents as well as containment

measures for all applied chemicals. Also

consider these BMP options (or their

equivalents) for reducing deicing fluid

use: forced-air deicing systems,

computer-controlled fixed-gantry

systems, infrared technology, hot water,

varying glycol content to air

temperature, enclosed-basket deicing

trucks, mechanical methods, solar

radiation, hangar storage, aircraft covers,

thermal blankets for MD–80s and DC–

9s. Also consider using ice-detection

systems and airport traffic flow

strategies and departure slot allocation

systems.

6.S.5.3.7 Management of Runoff.

Where deicing operations occur,

describe and implement a program to

control or manage contaminated runoff

to reduce the amount of pollutants being

discharged from the site. Consider these

BMP options (or their equivalents): a

dedicated deicing facility with a runoff

collection/recovery system; using

vacuum/collection trucks; storing

contaminated storm water/deicing

fluids in tanks and releasing controlled

amounts to a publicly owned treatment

works; collecting contaminated runoff

in a wet pond for biochemical

decomposition (be aware of attracting

wildlife that may prove hazardous to

flight operations); and directing runoff

into vegetative swales or other

infiltration measures. Also consider

recovering deicing materials when these

materials are applied during nonprecipitation events (e.g., covering

storm sewer inlets, using booms,

installing absorptive interceptors in the

drains, etc.) to prevent these materials

from later becoming a source of storm

water contamination. Used deicing fluid

should be recycled whenever possible.

6.S.5.4 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Specify the frequency of

inspections in your SWPPP. At a

minimum they must be conducted

monthly during the deicing season (e.g.,

October through April for most midlatitude airports). If your facility needs

to deice before or after this period,

expand the monthly inspections to

include all months during which

deicing chemicals may be used. Also, if

significantly or deleteriously large

quantities of deicing chemicals are

being spilled or discharged, or if water

quality impacts have been reported,

increase the frequency of your

inspections to weekly until such time as

the chemical spills/discharges or

impacts are reduced to acceptable

levels. The Director may specifically

require you to increase inspections and

SWPPP reevaluations as necessary.

6.S.5.5 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also 4.9)

(See also Part 4.9)

Using only qualified personnel,

conduct your annual site compliance

evaluations during periods of actual

deicing operations, if possible. If not

practicable during active deicing or the

weather is too inclement, conduct the

evaluations when deicing operations are

likely to occur and the materials and

equipment for deicing are in place.

6.S.6 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

TABLE S–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMBERIC LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration1 Numeric limitation

Sector of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Facilities at airports that use more than 100,000 gallons

of glycol-based deicing/anti-icing chemicals and/or

100 tons or more of urea on an average annual

basis: monitor ONLY those outfalls from the airport

facility that collect runoff from areas where deicing/

anti-icing activities occur (SIC 45XX).

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5).30 mg/L .............................

Chemical Oxygen Demand

COD).

120.0mg/L.

Ammonia

19 mg/L.

pH 6/0 to 9 s.u

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 monitoring years.

6.T Sector T—Treatment Works

6.T.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.T apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Treatment

Works as identified by the Activity Code

specified under Sector T in Table 1–1 of

Part 1.2.1.

6.T.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector T

The requirements listed under this

Part apply to all existing point source

storm water discharges associated with

the following activities:

6.T.2.1 treatment works treating

domestic sewage or any other sewage

sludge or wastewater treatment device

or system used in the storage, treatment,

recycling and reclamation of municipal

64846 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

or domestic sewage; including land

dedicated to the disposal of sewage

sludge; that are located within the

confines of the facility with a design

flow of 1.0 MGD or more; or required to

have an approved pretreatment program

under 40 CFR Part 403.

6.T.2.2 Not required to have permit

coverage: farm lands; domestic gardens

or lands used for sludge management

where sludge is beneficially reused and

which are not physically located within

the facility; or areas that are in

compliance with Section 405 of the

CWA.

6.T.3 Limitations on Coverage

6.T.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.1)

Not authorized by this permit: sanitary

and industrial wastewater; and

equipment/vehicle washwater.

6.T.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.T.4.1 Site Map. (See also Part

4.2.2.3.6) Identify where any of the

following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: grit,

screenings and other solids handling,

storage or disposal areas; sludge drying

beds; dried sludge piles; compost piles;

septage or hauled waste receiving

station; and storage areas for process

chemicals, petroleum products,

solvents, fertilizers, herbicides and

pesticides.

6.T.4.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Describe the

following additional sources and

activities that have potential pollutants

associated with them, as applicable: grit,

screenings and other solids handling,

storage or disposal areas; sludge drying

beds; dried sludge piles; compost piles;

septage or hauled waste receiving

station; and access roads/rail lines.

6.T.4.3 Best Management Practices (BMPs).

(See also Part 4.2.7.2) In addition to the

other BMPs considered, consider the

following: routing storm water to the

treatment works; or covering exposed

materials (i.e., from the following areas:

grit, screenings and other solids

handling, storage or disposal areas;

sludge drying beds; dried sludge piles;

compost piles; septage or hauled waste

receiving station).

6.T.4.4 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Include the following areas

in all inspections: access roads/rail

lines; grit, screenings and other solids

handling, storage or disposal areas;

sludge drying beds; dried sludge piles;

compost piles; septage or hauled waste

receiving station areas.

6.T.4.5 Employee Training. (See also

Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) At a minimum, must

address the following areas when

applicable to a facility: petroleum

product management; process chemical

management; spill prevention and

controls; fueling procedures; general

good housekeeping practices; proper

procedures for using fertilizer,

herbicides and pesticides.

6.T.4.6 Wastewater and Washwater

Requirements. (See also Part 4.4) Attach

to your SWPPP a copy of all your

current NPDES permits issued for

wastewater, industrial, vehicle and

equipment washwater discharges or, if

an NPDES permit has not yet been

issued, a copy of the pending

applications. Address any requirements/

conditions from the other permits, as

appropriate, in the SWPPP. If the

washwater is handled in another

manner, the disposal method must be

described and all pertinent

documentation must be attached to the

plan.

6.U Sector U—Food and Kindred

Products

6.U.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.U apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Food and

Kindred Products facilities as identified

by the SIC Codes specified in Table 1–

1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.U.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector U

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector U are primarily engaged in

are:

6.U.2.1 meat products;

6.U.2.2 dairy products;

6.U.2.3 canned, frozen and

preserved fruits, vegetables, and food

specialties;

6.U.2.4 grain mill products;

6.U.2.5 bakery products;

6.U.2.6 sugar and confectionery

products;

6.U.2.7 fats and oils;

6.U.2.8 beverages;

6.U.2.9 miscellaneous food

preparations and kindred products and

tobacco products manufacturing.

6.U.3 Limitations on Coverage

Not covered by this permit: storm

water discharges identified under Part

1.2.3 from industrial plant yards,

material handling sites; refuse sites;

sites used for application or disposal of

process wastewaters; sites used for

storage and maintenance of material

handling equipment; sites used for

residential wastewater treatment,

storage, or disposal; shipping and

receiving areas; manufacturing

buildings; and storage areas for raw

material and intermediate and finished

products. This includes areas where

industrial activity has taken place in the

past and significant materials remain.

‘‘Material handling activities’’ include

the storage, loading/unloading,

transportation or conveyance of any raw

material, intermediate product, finished

product, by-product or waste product.

6.U.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.2.2)

Not authorized by this permit:

discharges subject to Part 1.2.2.2

include discharges containing: boiler

blowdown, cooling tower overflow and

blowdown, ammonia refrigeration

purging and vehicle washing/clean-out

operations.

6.U.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.U.4.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify the

locations of the following activities if

they are exposed to precipitation/runoff:

vents/stacks from cooking, drying and

similar operations; dry product vacuum

transfer lines; animal holding pens;

spoiled product; and broken product

container storage areas.

6.U.4.2 Potential Pollutant

Sources.(See also Part 4.2.4) Describe, in

addition to food and kindred products

processing-related industrial activities,

application and storage of pest control

chemicals (e.g., rodenticides,

insecticides, fungicides, etc.) used on

plant grounds.

6.U.4.3 Inspections.(See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Inspect on a regular basis, at

a minimum, the following areas where

the potential for exposure to storm

water exists: loading and unloading

areas for all significant materials;

storage areas including associated

containment areas; waste management

units; vents and stacks emanating from

industrial activities; spoiled product

and broken product container holding

areas; animal holding pens; staging

areas; and air pollution control

equipment.

6.U.4.4 Employee Training.(See also

Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) Address pest control in

the training program.

6.U.5 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64847

TABLE U–1. SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one Sector/Subsector)

Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration1 Numeric limitation

Part or Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Grain Mill Products (SIC 2041–2048) ............................. Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

100 mg/L.

Fats and Oils Products (SIC 2074–2079) ....................... Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5).30 mg/L.

Chemical Oxygen Demand

(COD).

120 mg/L.

Nitrate plus Nitrate Nitrogen.0.68 mg/L.

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS).

100 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

6.V Sector V—Textile Mills, Apparel

and Other Fabric Products

6.V.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.V apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Textile Mills,

Apparel, and Other Fabric Product

Manufacturing as identified by the

Activity Code specified under Sector V

in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.V.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector V

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector V are primarily engaged in

are:

6.V.2.1 textile mill products, of and

regarding facilities and establishments

engaged in the preparation of fiber and

subsequent manufacturing of yarn,

thread, braids, twine, and cordage, the

manufacturing of broadwoven fabrics,

narrow woven fabrics, knit fabrics, and

carpets and rugs from yarn;

6.V.2.2 processes involved in the

dyeing and finishing of fibers, yarn

fabrics, and knit apparel;

6.V.2.3 the integrated manufacturing

of knit apparel and other finished

articles of yarn;

6.V.2.4 the manufacturing of felt

goods (wool), lace goods, non-woven

fabrics, miscellaneous textiles, and

other apparel products.

6.V.3 Limitations on Coverage

6.V.3.1 Prohibition of Non-Storm

Water Discharges. (See also Part 1.2.3.1)

Not authorized by this permit:

discharges of wastewater (e.g.,

wastewater resulting from wet

processing or from any processes

relating to the production process);

reused/recycled water; and waters used

in cooling towers. If you have these

types of discharges from your facility,

you must cover them under a separate

NPDES permit.

6.V.4 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.V.4.1 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Describe the

following additional sources and

activities that have potential pollutants

associated with them: industrial-specific

significant materials and industrial

activities (e.g., backwinding, beaming,

bleaching, backing bonding,

carbonizing, carding, cut and sew

operations, desizing , drawing, dyeing

locking, fulling, knitting, mercerizing,

opening, packing, plying, scouring,

slashing, spinning, synthetic-felt

processing, textile waste processing,

tufting, turning, weaving, web forming,

winging, yarn spinning, and yarn

texturing).

6.V.4.2 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.V.4.2.1 Material Storage Area.

Plainly label and store all containerized

materials (e.g., fuels, petroleum

products, solvents, dyes, etc.) in a

protected area, away from drains.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

the storm water runoff from such storage

areas, including a description of the

containment area or enclosure for those

materials stored outdoors. Also consider

an inventory control plan to prevent

excessive purchasing of potentially

hazardous substances. For storing empty

chemical drums/containers, ensure the

drums/containers are clean (consider

triple-rinsing) and there is no contact of

residuals with precipitation/runoff.

Collect and dispose of washwater from

these cleanings properly.

6.V.4.2.2 Material Handling Area.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

storm water runoff from material

handling operations and areas. Consider

the following (or their equivalents): use

of spill/overflow protection; covering

fueling areas; and covering/enclosing

areas where the transfer of material may

occur. Where applicable address the

replacement or repair of leaking

connections, valves, transfer lines and

pipes that may carry chemicals, dyes or

wastewater.

6.V.4.2.3 Fueling Areas. Describe

and implement measures that prevent or

minimize contamination of storm water

runoff from fueling areas. Consider the

following (or their equivalents):

covering the fueling area, using spill

and overflow protection, minimizing

runon of storm water to the fueling

areas, using dry cleanup methods, and

treating and/or recycling storm water

runoff collected from the fueling area.

6.V.4.2.4 Above Ground Storage

Tank Area. Describe and implement

measures that prevent or minimize

contamination of the storm water runoff

from above ground storage tank areas,

including the associated piping and

valves. Consider the following (or their

equivalents): regular cleanup of these

areas; preparation of the spill

prevention control and countermeasure

program, provide spill and overflow

protection; minimizing runoff of storm

water from adjacent areas; restricting

access to the area; insertion of filters in

adjacent catch basins; providing

absorbent booms in unbermed fueling

areas; using dry cleanup methods; and

permanently sealing drains within

critical areas that may discharge to a

storm drain.

6.V.4.3 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Inspect, at least on a

monthly basis, the following activities

and areas (at a minimum): transfer and

transmission lines; spill prevention;

good housekeeping practices;

management of process waste products;

all structural and non structural

management practices.

64848 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

6.V.4.4 Employee Training. (See also

Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) As part of your

employee training program, address, at

a minimum, the following activities (as

applicable): use of reused/recycling

waters; solvents management; proper

disposal of dyes; proper disposal of

petroleum products and spent

lubricants; spill prevention and control;

fueling procedures; and general good

housekeeping practices.

6.V.4.5 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also Part

4.9) Conduct regularly scheduled

evaluations at least once a year and

address those areas contributing to a

storm water discharge associated with

industrial activity for evidence of, or the

potential for, pollutants entering the

drainage system. Inspect, at a minimum,

as appropriate: storage tank areas; waste

disposal and storage areas; dumpsters

and open containers stored outside;

materials storage areas; engine

maintenance and repair areas; material

handing areas and loading dock areas.

6.W Sector W—Furniture and

Fixtures

6.W.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.W apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Furniture and

Fixtures facilities as identified by the

Activity Code specified under Sector W

in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.W.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector W

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector W are primarily engaged in

the manufacturing of:

6.W.2.1 wood kitchen cabinets;

6.W.2.2 household furniture;

6.W.2.3 office furniture;

6.W.2.4 public buildings and related

furniture;

6.W.2.5 partitions, shelving, lockers,

and office and store fixtures;

6.W.2.6 miscellaneous furniture and

fixtures.

6.W.3 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.W.3.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where

any of the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: material

storage (including tanks or other vessels

used for liquid or waste storage) areas;

outdoor material processing areas; areas

where wastes are treated, stored or

disposed; access roads; and rail spurs.

6.X Sector X—Printing and Publishing

6.X.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.X apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Printing and

Publishing facilities as identified by the

Activity Code specified under Sector X

in Table 1.1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.X.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector X

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector X are primarily engaged in

are:

6.X.2.1 book printing;

6.X.2.2 commercial printing and

lithographics;

6.X.2.3 plate making and related

services;

6.X.2.4 commercial printing,

gravure;

6.X.2.5 commercial printing not

elsewhere classified.

6.X.3 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.X.3.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where

any of the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: above

ground storage tanks, drums and barrel

permanently stored outside.

6.X.3.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Describe the

following additional sources and

activities that have potential pollutants

associated with them, as applicable:

loading and unloading operations;

outdoor storage activities; significant

dust or particulate generating processes;

and onsite waste disposal practices (e.g.,

blanket wash). Also identify the

pollutant or pollutant parameter (e.g.,

oil and grease, scrap metal, etc.)

associated with each pollutant source.

6.X.3.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.X.3.3.1 Material Storage Areas.

Plainly label and store all containerized

materials (e.g., skids, pallets, solvents,

bulk inks, and hazardous waste, empty

drums, portable/mobile containers of

plant debris, wood crates, steel racks,

fuel oil, etc.) in a protected area, away

from drains. Describe and implement

measures that prevent or minimize

contamination of the storm water runoff

from such storage areas, including a

description of the containment area or

enclosure for those materials stored

outdoors. Also consider an inventory

control plan to prevent excessive

purchasing of potentially hazardous

substances.

6.X.3.3.2 Material Handling Area.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

storm water runoff from material

handling operations and areas (e.g.,

blanket wash, mixing solvents, loading/

unloading materials). Consider the

following (or their equivalents): use of

spill/overflow protection; covering

fueling areas; and covering/enclosing

areas where the transfer of materials

may occur. Where applicable address

the replacement or repair of leaking

connections, valves, transfer lines and

pipes that may carry chemicals or

wastewater.

6.X.3.3.3 Fueling Areas. Describe

and implement measures that prevent or

minimize contamination of storm water

runoff from fueling areas. Consider the

following (or their equivalents):

covering the fueling area, using spill

and overflow protection, minimizing

runoff of storm water to the fueling

areas, using dry cleanup methods, and

treating and/or recycling storm water

runoff collected from the fueling area.

6.X.3.3.4 Above Ground Storage

Tank Area. Describe and implement

measures that prevent or minimize

contamination of the storm water runoff

from above ground storage tank areas,

including the associated piping and

valves. Consider the following (or their

equivalents): regular cleanup of these

areas; preparation of the spill

prevention control and countermeasure

program, provide spill and overflow

protection; minimizing runoff of storm

water from adjacent areas; restricting

access to the area; insertion of filters in

adjacent catch basins; providing

absorbent booms in unbermed fueling

areas; using dry cleanup methods; and

permanently sealing drains within

critical areas that may discharge to a

storm drain.

6.X.3.4 Employee Training. (See also

Part 4.2.7.2.1.6) As part of your

employee training program, address, at

a minimum, the following activities (as

applicable): spent solvent management;

spill prevention and control; used oil

management; fueling procedures; and

general good housekeeping practices.

6.Y Sector Y—Rubber, Miscellaneous

Plastic Products and Miscellaneous

Manufacturing Industries

6.Y.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.Y apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Rubber,

Miscellaneous Plastic Products and

Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries

facilities as identified by the Activity

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64849

Code specified under Sector Y in Table

1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.Y.2 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.Y.2.1 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) Review the use of

zinc at your facility and the possible

pathways through which zinc may be

discharged in storm water runoff.

6.Y.2.2 Controls for Rubber

Manufacturers. (See also Part 4.2.7)

Describe and implement specific

controls to minimize the discharge of

zinc in your storm water discharges.

Parts 6.Y.2.2.1 to 6.Y.2.2.5 give possible

sources of zinc to be reviewed and list

some specific BMPs to be considered for

implementation (or their equivalents).

Some general BMP options to consider:

using chemicals which are purchased in

pre-weighed, sealed polyethylene bags;

storing materials which are in use in

sealable containers; ensuring an

airspace between the container and the

cover to minimize ‘‘puffing’’ losses

when the container is opened; and using

automatic dispensing and weighing

equipment.

6.Y.2.2.1 Inadequate Housekeeping.

Review the handling and storage of zinc

bags at your facility. BMP options:

employee training on the handling/

storage of zinc bags; indoor storage of

zinc bags; cleanup zinc spills without

washing the zinc into the storm drain,

and the use of 2,500-pound sacks of zinc

rather than 50- to 100-pound sacks;

6.Y.2.2.2 Dumpsters. Reduce

discharges of zinc from dumpsters. BMP

options: covering the dumpster; moving

the dumpster indoors; or provide a

lining for the dumpster.

6.Y.2.2.3 Malfunctioning Dust

Collectors or Baghouses: Review dust

collectors/baghouses as possible sources

in zinc in storm water runoff. Replace

or repair, as appropriate, improperly

operating dust collectors/baghouses.

6.Y.2.2.4 Grinding Operations.

Review dust generation from rubber

grinding operations and, as appropriate,

install a dust collection system.

6.Y.2.2.5 Zinc Stearate Coating

Operations. Detail appropriate measures

to prevent or clean up drips/spills of

zinc stearate slurry that may be released

to the storm drain. BMP option: using

alternate compounds to zinc stearate.

6.Y.2.3 Controls for Plastic Products

Manufacturers. Describe and implement

specific controls to minimize the

discharge of plastic resin pellets in your

storm water discharges. BMPs to be

considered for implementation (or their

equivalents): minimizing spills;

cleaning up of spills promptly and

thoroughly; sweeping thoroughly; pellet

capturing; employee education and

disposal precautions.

6.Y.3 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements. (See also Part 5)

TABLE Y–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector Parameter Benchmark monitoring cutoff concentration Numeric limitations

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Tires and Inner Tubes; Rubber Footwear; Gaskets,

Packing and Sealing Devices; Rubber Hose and Belting; and Fabricated Rubber Products, Not Elsewhere

Classified (SIC 3011–3069, rubber.

Total Recoverable Zinc ..... 0.117 mg/L

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years.

6.Z Sector Z—Leather Tanning and

Finishing

6.Z.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.Z apply to

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from Leather Tanning

and Finishing facilities as identified by

the Activity Code specified under Sector

Z in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.Z.2 Industrial Activities Covered by

Sector Z

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector Z are primarily engaged

are leather tanning, curry and finishing;

6.Z.3 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.Z.3.1 Drainage Area Site Map. (See

also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where any of

the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: processing

and storage areas of the beamhouse,

tanyard, and re-tan wet finishing and

dry finishing operations; and haul

roads, access roads and rail spurs.

6.Z.3.2 Potential Pollutant Sources.

(See also Part 4.2.4) At a minimum,

describe the following additional

sources and activities that have

potential pollutants associated with

them (as appropriate): temporary or

permanent storage of fresh and brine

cured hides; extraneous hide substances

and hair; leather dust, scraps, trimmings

and shavings; chemical drums, bags,

containers and above ground tanks;

empty chemical containers and bags;

spent solvents; floor sweepings/

washings; refuse, waste piles and

sludge; and significant dust/particulate

generating processes (e.g., buffing).

6.Z.3.3 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.Z.3.3.1 Storage Areas for Raw,

Semiprocessed or Finished Tannery

Byproducts. Pallets/bales of raw,

semiprocessed or finished tannery

byproducts (e.g., splits, trimmings,

shavings, etc.) should be stored indoors

or protected by polyethylene wrapping,

tarpaulins, roofed storage, etc. Consider

placing materials on an impermeable

surface, and enclosing or putting berms

(or equivalent measures) around the

area to prevent storm water runon/

runoff.

6.Z.3.3.2 Material Storage Areas.

Label storage containers of all materials

(e.g., specific chemicals, hazardous

materials, spent solvents, waste

materials). Describe and implement

measures that prevent/minimize contact

with storm water.

6.Z.3.3.3 Buffing and Shaving Areas.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

storm water runoff with leather dust

from buffing/shaving areas. Consider

dust collection enclosures, preventive

inspection/maintenance programs or

other appropriate preventive measures.

6.Z.3.3.4 Receiving, Unloading, and

Storage Areas. Describe and implement

measures that prevent or minimize

contamination of storm water runoff

from receiving, unloading, and storage

areas. If these areas are exposed,

consider (or their equivalent): Covering

all hides and chemical supplies;

diverting drainage to the process sewer;

64850 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

or grade berming/curbing area to

prevent runoff of storm water.

6.Z.3.3.5 Outdoor Storage of

Contaminated Equipment. Describe and

implement measures that prevent or

minimize contact of storm water with

contaminated equipment. Consider (or

their equivalent): Covering equipment;

diverting drainage to the process sewer;

and cleaning thoroughly prior to

storage.

6.Z.3.3.6 Waste Management.

Describe and implement measures that

prevent or minimize contamination of

storm water runoff from waste storage

areas. Consider (or their equivalent):

Inspection/maintenance programs for

leaking containers or spills; covering

dumpsters; moving waste management

activities indoors; covering waste piles

with temporary covering material such

as tarpaulins or polyethylene; and

minimizing storm water runoff by

enclosing the area or building berms

around the area.

6.AA Sector AA—Fabricated Metal

Products

6.AA.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.AA apply

to storm water discharges associated

with industrial activity from Fabricated

Metal Products facilities as identified by

the Activity Code specified under Sector

AA in Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.AA.2 Industrial Activities Covered

by Sector AA

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector AA are primarily engaged

in are:

6.AA.2.1 Fabricated metal products;

except for electrical related industries;

6.AA.2.2 Fabricated metal products;

except machinery and transportation

equipment;

6.AA.2.3 Jewelry, silverware, and

plated ware.

6.AA.3 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.AA.3.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where

any of the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: Raw metal

storage areas; finished metal storage

areas; scrap disposal collection sites;

equipment storage areas; retention and

detention basins; temporary/permanent

diversion dikes or berms; right-of-way

or perimeter diversion devices;

sediment traps/barriers; processing

areas including outside painting areas;

wood preparation; recycling; and raw

material storage.

6.AA.3.2 Spills and Leaks. (See also

Part 4.2.5) When listing significant

spills/leaks, pay attention to the

following materials at a minimum:

Chromium, toluene, pickle liquor,

sulfuric acid, zinc and other water

priority chemicals and hazardous

chemicals and wastes.

6.AA.3.3 Potential Pollutant

Sources. (See also Part 4.2.4) Describe

the following additional sources and

activities that have potential pollutants

associated with them: Loading and

unloading operations for paints,

chemicals and raw materials; outdoor

storage activities for raw materials,

paints, empty containers, corn cob,

chemicals, and scrap metals; outdoor

manufacturing or processing activities

such as grinding, cutting, degreasing,

buffing, brazing, etc; onsite waste

disposal practices for spent solvents,

sludge, pickling baths, shavings, ingots

pieces, refuse and waste piles.

6.AA.3.4 Good Housekeeping

Measures. (See also Part 4.2.7.2.1.1)

6.AA.3.4.1 Raw Steel Handling

Storage. Describe and implement

measures controlling or recovering scrap

metals, fines and iron dust. Include

measures for containing materials

within storage handling areas.

6.AA.3.4.2 Paints and Painting

Equipment. Describe and implement

measures to prevent or minimize

exposure of paint and painting

equipment to storm water.

6.AA.3.5 Spill Prevention and

Response Procedures. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.4) Ensure the necessary

equipment to implement a clean up is

available to personnel. The following

areas should be addressed:

6.AA.3.5.1 Metal Fabricating Areas.

Describe and implement measures for

maintaining clean, dry, orderly

conditions in these areas. Consider the

use of dry clean-up techniques.

6.AA.3.5.2 Storage Areas for Raw

Metal. Describe and implement

measures to keep these areas free of

condition that could cause spills or

leakage of materials. Consider the

following (or their equivalents):

maintaining storage areas such that

there is easy access in the event of a

spill; and labeling stored materials to

aid in identifying spill contents.

6.AA.3.5.3 Receiving, Unloading,

and Storage Areas. Describe and

implement measures to prevent spills

and leaks; plan for quick remedial clean

up; and instruct employees on clean-up

techniques and procedures.

6.AA.3.5.4 Storage of Equipment.

Describe and implement measures for

preparing equipment for storage and the

proper storage of equipment. Consider

the following (or their equivalents):

protecting with covers; storing indoors;

and cleaning potential pollutants from

equipment to be stored outdoors.

6.AA.3.5.5 Metal Working Fluid

Storage Areas. Describe and implement

measures for storage of metal working

fluids.

6.AA.3.5.6 Cleaners and Rinse

Water. Describe and implement

measures: to control/cleanup spills of

solvents and other liquid cleaners;

control sand buildup and disbursement

from sand-blasting operations; and

prevent exposure of recyclable wastes.

Substitute environmentally-benign

cleaners when possible.

6.AA.3.5.7 Lubricating Oil and

Hydraulic Fluid Operations. Consider

using monitoring equipment or other

devices to detect and control leaks/

overflows. Consider installing perimeter

controls such as dikes, curbs, grass filter

strips or other equivalent measures.

6.AA.3.5.8 Chemical Storage Areas.

Describe and implement proper storage

methods that prevent storm water

contamination and accidental spillage.

Include a program to inspect containers

and identify proper disposal methods.

6.AA.3.6 Inspections. (See also Part

4.2.7.2.1.5) Include, at a minimum, the

following areas in all inspections: raw

metal storage areas; finished product

storage areas; material and chemical

storage areas; recycling areas; loading

and unloading areas; equipment storage

areas; paint areas; vehicle fueling and

maintenance areas.

6.AA.3.7 Comprehensive Site

Compliance Evaluation. (See also Part

4.9.2) As part of your evaluation, also

inspect: areas associated with the

storage of raw metals; storage of spent

solvents and chemicals; outdoor paint

areas; and drainage from roof. Potential

pollutants include chromium, zinc,

lubricating oil, solvents, aluminum, oil

and grease, methyl ethyl ketone, steel

and other related materials.

6.AA.4 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements

(See also Part 5)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64851

TABLE AA–1.—SECTOR-SPECIFIC NUMERIC LIMITATIONS AND BENCHMARK MONITORING

Subsector

(Discharges may be subject to requirements for more

than one sector/subsector)

Parameter Benchmark, monitoring,

cutoff, concentration1 Numeric limitation

Part of Permit Affected/Supplemental Requirements

Fabricated Metal Products Except Coating (SIC 3411–

3471, 3482–3499, 3911–3915).

Total Recoverable Aluminum.0.75 mg/L.

Total Recoverable Iron ...... 1.0 mg/L.

Total Recoverable Zinc ..... 0.117 mg/L.

Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L.

Fabricated Metal Coating and Engraving (SIC 3479) ..... Total Recoverable Zinc ..... 0.117 mg/L.

Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L.

1 Monitor once/quarter for the year 2 and year 4 Monitoring Years

6.AB Sector AB—Transportation

Equipment, Industrial or Commercial

Machinery

6.AB.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.AB apply

to storm water discharges associated

with industrial activity from

Transportation Equipment, Industrial or

Commercial Machinery facilities as

identified by the Activity Code specified

under Sector AB in Table 1–1 of Part

1.2.1.

6.AB.2 Industrial Activities Covered

by Sector AB

The types of activities that permittees

under Sector AB are primarily engaged

in are:

6.AB.2.1 Industrial and Commercial

Machinery (except Computer and Office

Equipment) (see Sector AC); and

6.AB.2.2 Transportation Equipment

(except Ship and Boat Building and

Repairing) (see Sector R).

6.AB.3 Storm Water Pollution Plan

(SWPPP) Requirements

In addition to the following

requirements, you must also comply

with the requirements listed in Part 4.

6.AB.3.1 Drainage Area Site Map.

(See also Part 4.2.2.3) Identify where

any of the following may be exposed to

precipitation/surface runoff: vents and

stacks from metal processing and

similar operations.

6.AB.3.2 Non-Storm Water

Discharges. (See also Part 4.4) If your

facility has a separate NPDES permit (or

has applied for a permit) authorizing

discharges of wastewater, attach a copy

of the permit (or the application) to your

SWPPP. Any new wastewater permits

issued/reissued to you must then

replace the old one in your SWPPP. If

you discharge wastewater, other than

solely domestic wastewater, to a

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

(POTW), you must notify the POTW of

the discharge (identify the types of

wastewater discharged, including any

storm water). As proof of this

notification, attach to your SWPPP a

copy of the permit issued to your

facility by the POTW or a copy of your

notification to the POTW.

6.AC Sector AC—Electronic, Electrical

Equipment and Components,

Photographic and Optical Goods

6.AC.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

The requirements in Part 6.AC apply

to storm water discharges associated

with industrial activity from facilities

that manufacture Electronic, Electrical

Equipment and Components,

Photographic and Optical Goods as

identified by the SIC Codes specified in

Table 1–1 of Part 1.2.1.

6.AC.2 Industrial Activities Covered

by Sector AC

The types of manufacturing activities

that permittees under Sector AC are

primarily engaged in are:

6.AC.2.1 Measuring, analyzing, and

controlling instruments;

6.AC.2.2 Photographic, medical and

optical goods;

6.AC.2.3 Watches and clocks; and

6.AC.2.4 Computer and office

equipment.

6.AC.3 Additional Requirements

No additional sector-specific

requirements apply to this sector.

6.AD Storm Water Discharges

Designated by the Director as Requiring

Permits

6.AD.1 Covered Storm Water

Discharges

Sector AD is used to provide permit

coverage for facilities designated by the

Director as needing a storm water

permit, or any discharges of industrial

activity that do not meet the description

of an industrial activity covered by

Sectors A–AC. Therefore, almost any

type of storm water discharge could be

covered under this sector. You must be

assigned to Sector AD by the Director

and may NOT choose sector AD as the

sector describing your activities on your

own.

6.AD.1.1 Eligibility for Permit

Coverage. Because this Sector only

covers discharges designated by the

Director as needing a storm water

permit (which is an atypical

circumstance) or your facility’s

industrial activities were inadvertently

left out of Sectors A–AC, and your

facility may or may not normally be

discharging storm water associated with

industrial activity, you must obtain the

Director’s written permission to use this

permit prior to submitting a Notice of

Intent. If you are authorized to use this

permit, you will be required to ensure

your discharges meet the basic

eligibility provisions of this permit at

Part 1.2.

6.AD.2 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements

The Director will establish any

additional Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan requirements for your

facility at the time of accepting your

Notice of Intent to be covered by this

permit. Additional requirements would

be based on the nature of activities at

your facility and your storm water

discharges.

6.AD.3 Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements

The Director will establish any

additional monitoring and reporting

requirements for your facility at the time

of accepting your Notice of Intent to be

covered by this permit. Additional

requirements would be based on the

nature of activities at your facility and

your storm water discharges.

7. Reporting

7.1 Reporting Results of Monitoring

Depending on the types of monitoring

required for your facility, you may have

to submit the results of your monitoring

or you may only have to keep the results

64852 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

with your Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan. You must follow the

reporting requirements and deadlines in

Table 7–1 that apply to the types of

monitoring that apply to your facility.

If required by the conditions of the

permit that apply to your facility, you

must submit analytical monitoring

results obtained from each outfall

associated with industrial activity (or a

certification as per 5.3.1) on a Discharge

Monitoring Report (DMR) form (one

form must be submitted for each storm

event sampled). An example of a form

is found in the Guidance Manual for the

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

of the NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector

General Permit. A copy of the DMR is

also available on the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/owm/sw/permits-andforms/index.htm. The signed DMR must

be sent to: MSGP DMR (4203), US EPA,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Note: If EPA notifies dischargers (either

directly, by public notice or by making

information available on the Internet) of

other DMR form options that become

available at a later date (e.g., electronic

submission of forms), you may take

advantage of those options to satisfy the DMR

use and submission requirements of Part 7.

TABLE 7–1.—DMR/ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION SUBMISSION DEADLINES

Type of monitoring Reporting deadline (postmark)

Monitoring for Numeric Limitation ....................... Submit results by the 28th day of the month following the monitoring period.

Benchmark Monitoring:

Monitoring Year 2001–2002 ........................ Save and submit all results for year in one package by January 28, 2003.

Monitoring Year 2003–2004 ........................ Save and submit all results for year in one package by January 28, 2005.

Biannual Monitoring for Metal Mining Facilities

(see Part 6.G).

Save and submit all results for year in one package by January 28 of the year following the

monitoring year.

Visual Monitoring ................................................ Retain results with SWPPP—do not submit unless requested to do so by Permitting Authority.

State/Tribal/Territory—Specific Monitoring ......... See Part 13 (conditions for specific States, Indian country, and Territories).

7.2 Additional Reporting for

Dischargers to a Large or Medium

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

System

If you discharge storm water

discharge associated with industrial

activity through a large or medium

municipal separate storm sewer system

(systems serving a population of

100,000 or more), you must also submit

signed copies of your discharge

monitoring reports to the operator of the

municipal separate storm sewer system

in accordance with the dates provided

in Table 7–1.

7.3 Miscellaneous Reports

You must submit any other reports

required by this permit to the Director

of the NPDES program at the address of

the appropriate Regional Office listed in

Part 8.3.

8. Retention of Records

8.1 Documents

In addition to the requirements of Part

9.16.2, you must retain copies of Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plans and

all reports and certifications required by

this permit, and records of all data used

to complete the Notice of Intent to be

covered by this permit, for a period of

at least three years from the date that the

facility’s coverage under this permit

expires or is terminated. This period

may be extended by request of the

Director at any time.

8.2 Accessibility

You must retain a copy of the Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan

required by this permit (including a

copy of the permit language) at the

facility (or other local location

accessible to the Director, a State, Tribal

or Territorial agency with jurisdiction

over water quality protection; local

government officials; or the operator of

a municipal separate storm sewer

receiving discharges from the site) from

the date of permit coverage to the date

of permit coverage ceases. You must

make a copy of your Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan available to

the public if requested to do so in

writing.

8.3 Addresses

Except for the submittal of NOIs and

NOTs (see Parts 2.1 and 11.2,

respectively), all written

correspondence concerning discharges

in any State, Indian country land,

Territory, or from any Federal facility

covered under this permit and directed

to the EPA, including the submittal of

individual permit applications, must be

sent to the address of the appropriate

EPA Regional Office listed below:

8.3.1 Region 1: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI,

VT

EPA Region 1, Office of Ecosystem

Protection, One Congress Street—CMU,

Boston, MA 02114.

8.3.2 Region 2: NJ, NY, PR, VI

United States EPA, Region 2,

Caribbean Environmental Protection

Division, Environmental Management

Branch, Centro Europa Building, 1492

Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 417, San

Juan, PR 00907–4127.

8.3.3 Region 3: DE, DC, MD, PA, VA,

WV

EPA Region 3, Water Protection

Division (3WP13), Storm Water

Coordinator, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103.

8.3.4 Region 4: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS,

NC, SC, TN

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Clean Water Act Enforcement

Section, Water Programs Enforcement

Branch, Water Management Division,

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303.

8.3.5 Region 5: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH,

WI

(Coverage Not Available Under This

Permit.)

8.3.6 Region 6: AR, LA, OK, TX, NM

(Except see Region 9 for Navajo lands,

and see Region 8 for Ute Mountain

Reservation lands)

United States EPA, Region 6, Storm

Water Staff, Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance Division (GEN–

WC), EPA SW MSGP, P.O. Box 50625,

Dallas, TX 75205.

8.3.7 Region 7:

(Coverage Not Available Under This

Permit.)

8.3.8 Region 8: CO, MT, ND, SD, WY,

UT

(Except see Region 9 for Goshute

Reservation and Navajo Reservation

lands), the Ute Mountain Reservation in

NM, and the Pine Ridge Reservation in

NE

United States EPA, Region 8,

Ecosystems Protection Program (8EPR–

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64853

EP), Storm Water Staff, 999 18th Street,

Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202–2466.

8.3.9 Region 9: AZ, CA, HI, NV,

Guam, American Samoa, the

Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands, the Goshute

Reservation in UT and NV, the Navajo

Reservation in UT, NM, and AZ, the

Duck Valley Reservation in ID, Fort

McDermitt Reservation in OR

United States EPA, Region 9, Water

Management Division, WTR–5, Storm

Water Staff, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

8.3.10 Region 10: ID, WA, OR

(Except see Region 9 for Fort

McDermitt Reservation.)

United States EPA, Region 10, Office

of Water OW–130, 1200 6th Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98101.

8.4 State, Tribal, and Other Agencies

See Part 13 for addresses of States or

Tribes that require submission of

information to their agencies.

9. Standard Permit Conditions

9.1 Duty To Comply

9.1.1 You must comply with all

conditions of this permit. Any permit

noncompliance constitutes a violation

of CWA and is grounds for enforcement

action; for permit termination,

revocation and reissuance, or

modification; or for denial of a permit

renewal application.

9.1.2 Penalties for Violations of

Permit Conditions: The Director will

adjust the civil and administrative

penalties listed below in accordance

with the Civil Monetary Penalty

Inflation Adjustment Rule (Federal

Register: December 31, 1996, Volume

61, Number 252, pages 69359–69366, as

corrected, March 20, 1997, Volume 62,

Number 54, pages 13514–13517) as

mandated by the Debt Collection

Improvement Act of 1996 for inflation

on a periodic basis. This rule allows

EPA’s penalties to keep pace with

inflation. The Agency is required to

review its penalties at least once every

four years thereafter and to adjust them

as necessary for inflation according to a

specified formula. The civil and

administrative penalties listed below

were adjusted for inflation starting in

1996.

9.1.2.1 Criminal Penalties.

9.1.2.1.1 Negligent Violations.

The CWA provides that any person

who negligently violates permit

conditions implementing sections 301,

302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the

Act is subject to a fine of not less than

$2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day

of violation, or by imprisonment for not

more than 1 year, or both.

9.1.2.1.2 Knowing Violations. The

CWA provides that any person who

knowingly violates permit conditions

implementing sections 301, 302, 306,

307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is

subject to a fine of not less than $5,000

nor more than $50,000 per day of

violation, or by imprisonment for not

more than 3 years, or both.

9.1.2.1.3 Knowing Endangerment.

The CWA provides that any person who

knowingly violates permit conditions

implementing sections 301, 302, 306,

307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act and who

knows at that time that he is placing

another person in imminent danger of

death or serious bodily injury is subject

to a fine of not more than $250,000, or

by imprisonment for not more than 15

years, or both.

9.1.2.1.4 False Statement. The CWA

provides that any person who

knowingly makes any false material

statement, representation, or

certification in any application, record,

report, plan, or other document filed or

required to be maintained under the Act

or who knowingly falsifies, tampers

with, or renders inaccurate, any

monitoring device or method required

to be maintained under the Act, shall

upon conviction, be punished by a fine

of not more than $10,000 or by

imprisonment for not more than two

years, or by both. If a conviction is for

a violation committed after a first

conviction of such person under this

paragraph, punishment shall be by a

fine of not more than $20,000 per day

of violation, or by imprisonment of not

more than 4 years, or by both. (See

section 309(c)(4) of the Clean Water

Act.)

9.1.2.2 Civil Penalties. The CWA

provides that any person who violates a

permit condition implementing sections

301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of

the Act is subject to a civil penalty not

to exceed $27,500 per day for each

violation.

9.1.2.3 Administrative Penalties.

The CWA provides that any person who

violates a permit condition

implementing sections 301, 302, 306,

307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is

subject to an administrative penalty, as

follows:

9.1.2.3.1 Class I Penalty. Not to

exceed $11,000 per violation nor shall

the maximum amount exceed $27,500.

9.1.2.3.2 Class II Penalty. Not to

exceed $11,000 per day for each day

during which the violation continues

nor shall the maximum amount exceed

$137,500.

9.2 Continuation of the Expired

General Permit

If this permit is not reissued or

replaced prior to the expiration date, it

will be administratively continued in

accordance with the Administrative

Procedures Act and remain in force and

effect. Any permittee who was granted

permit coverage prior to the expiration

date will automatically remain covered

by the continued permit until the earlier

of:

9.2.1 Reissuance or replacement of

this permit, at which time you must

comply with the Notice of Intent

conditions of the new permit to

maintain authorization to discharge; or

9.2.2 Your submittal of a Notice of

Termination; or

9.2.3 Issuance of an individual

permit for your discharges; or

9.2.4 A formal permit decision by

the Director not to reissue this general

permit, at which time you must seek

coverage under an alternative general

permit or an individual permit.

9.3 Need To Halt or Reduce Activity

Not a Defense

It shall not be a defense for a

permittee in an enforcement action that

it would have been necessary to halt or

reduce the permitted activity in order to

maintain compliance with the

conditions of this permit.

9.4 Duty To Mitigate

You must take all reasonable steps to

minimize or prevent any discharge in

violation of this permit which has a

reasonable likelihood of adversely

affecting human health or the

environment.

9.5 Duty To Provide Information

You must furnish to the Director or an

authorized representative of the Director

any information which is requested to

determine compliance with this permit

or other information.

9.6 Other Information

If you become aware that you have

failed to submit any relevant facts or

submitted incorrect information in the

Notice of Intent or in any other report

to the Director, you must promptly

submit such facts or information.

9.7 Signatory Requirements

All Notices of Intent, Notices of

Termination, Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plans, reports, certifications

or information either submitted to the

Director or the operator of a large or

medium municipal separate storm

sewer system, or that this permit

requires be maintained by you, must be

signed as follows:

64854 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

9.7.1 All notices of intent and

notices of termination must be signed as

follows:

9.7.1.1 For a corporation: By a

responsible corporate officer. For the

purpose of this section, a responsible

corporate officer means: a president,

secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of

the corporation in charge of a principal

business function, or any other person

who performs similar policy or

decision-making functions for the

corporation; or the manager of one or

more manufacturing, production, or

operating facilities, provided, the

manager is authorized to make

management decisions which govern

the operation of the regulated facility

including having the explicit or implicit

duty of making major capital investment

recommendations, and initiating and

directing other comprehensive measures

to assure long term environmental

compliance with environmental laws

and regulations; the manager can ensure

that the necessary systems are

established or actions taken to gather

complete and accurate information for

permit application requirements; and

where authority to sign documents has

been assigned or delegated to the

manager in accordance with corporate

procedures;

9.7.1.2 For a partnership or sole

proprietorship: By a general partner or

the proprietor, respectively; or

9.7.1.3 For a municipality, State,

Federal, or other public agency: By

either a principal executive officer or

ranking elected official. For purposes of

this section, a principal executive

officer of a Federal agency includes: (1)

The chief executive officer of the

agency, or (2) a senior executive officer

having responsibility for the overall

operations of a principal geographic

unit of the agency (e.g., Regional

Administrators of EPA).

9.7.2 All reports required by this

permit and other information must be

signed as follows:

9.7.2.1 All reports required by this

permit and other information requested

by the Director or authorized

representative of the Director must be

signed by a person described in Part

9.7.1 or by a duly authorized

representative of that person.

9.7.2.2 A person is a duly authorized

representative only if the authorization

is made in writing by a person described

Part 9.7.1 and submitted to the Director.

9.7.2.3 The authorization must

specify either an individual or a

position having responsibility for the

overall operation of the regulated

facility or activity, such as the position

of manager, operator, superintendent, or

position of equivalent responsibility or

an individual or position having overall

responsibility for environmental matters

for the company. (A duly authorized

representative may thus be either a

named individual or any individual

occupying a named position).

9.7.3 Changes to Authorization. If

the information on the NOI filed for

permit coverage is no longer accurate

because a different operator has

responsibility for the overall operation

of the facility, a new Notice of Intent

satisfying the requirements of Part 2

must be submitted to the Director prior

to or together with any reports,

information, or applications to be signed

by an authorized representative. The

change in authorization must be

submitted within the time frame

specified in Part 2.1, and sent to the

address specified in Part 2.4.

9.7.4 Certification. Any person

signing documents under Part 9.7 must

make the following certification:

I certify under penalty of law that this

document and all attachments were prepared

under my direction or supervision in

accordance with a system designed to assure

that qualified personnel properly gathered

and evaluated the information submitted.

Based on my inquiry of the person or persons

who manage the system, or those persons

directly responsible for gathering the

information, the information submitted is, to

the best of my knowledge and belief, true,

accurate, and complete. I am aware that there

are significant penalties for submitting false

information, including the possibility of fine

and imprisonment for knowing violations.

9.8 Penalties for Falsification of

Reports

Section 309(c)(4) of the Clean Water

Act provides that any person who

knowingly makes any false material

statement, representation, or

certification in any record or other

document submitted or required to be

maintained under this permit, including

reports of compliance or noncompliance

shall, upon conviction, be punished by

a fine of not more than $10,000, or by

imprisonment for not more than two

years, or by both.

9.9 Oil and Hazardous Substance

Liability

Nothing in this permit shall be

construed to preclude the institution of

any legal action or relieve you from any

responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties

to which you are or may be subject

under section 311 of the CWA or section

106 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).

9.10 Property Rights

The issuance of this permit does not

convey any property rights of any sort,

nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it

authorize any injury to private property

nor any invasion of personal rights, nor

any infringement of Federal, State or

local laws or regulations.

9.11 Severability

The provisions of this permit are

severable, and if any provision of this

permit, or the application of any

provision of this permit to any

circumstance, is held invalid, the

application of such provision to other

circumstances, and the remainder of

this permit shall not be affected thereby.

9.12 Requiring Coverage Under an

Individual Permit or an Alternative

General Permit

9.12.1 Eligibility for this permit does

not confer a vested right to coverage

under the permit.

The Director may require any person

authorized by this permit to apply for

and/or obtain either an individual

NPDES permit or an alternative NPDES

general permit. Any interested person

may petition the Director to take action

under this paragraph. Where the

Director requires a permittee authorized

to discharge under this permit to apply

for an individual NPDES permit, the

Director will notify you in writing that

a permit application is required. This

notification will include a brief

statement of the reasons for this

decision, an application form, a

statement setting a deadline for you to

file the application, and a statement that

on the effective date of issuance or

denial of the individual NPDES permit

or the alternative general permit as it

applies to the individual permittee,

coverage under this general permit will

automatically terminate. Applications

must be submitted to the appropriate

Regional Office indicated in Part 8.3 of

this permit. The Director may grant

additional time to submit the

application upon request of the

applicant. If a permittee fails to submit

in a timely manner an individual

NPDES permit application as required

by the Director under this paragraph,

then the applicability of this permit to

the individual NPDES permittee is

automatically terminated at the end of

the day specified by the Director for

application submittal.

9.12.2 Any permittee authorized by

this permit may request to be excluded

from the coverage of this permit by

applying for an individual permit. In

such cases, you must submit an

individual application in accordance

with the requirements of 40 CFR

122.26(c)(1)(ii), with reasons supporting

the request, to the Director at the

address for the appropriate Regional

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64855

Office indicated in Part 8.3 of this

permit. The request may be granted by

issuance of any individual permit or an

alternative general permit if the reasons

cited by you are adequate to support the

request.

9.12.3 When an individual NPDES

permit is issued to a permittee

otherwise subject to this permit, or the

permittee is authorized to discharge

under an alternative NPDES general

permit, the applicability of this permit

to the individual NPDES permittee is

automatically terminated on the

effective date of the individual permit or

the date of authorization of coverage

under the alternative general permit,

whichever the case may be. When an

individual NPDES permit is denied to

an owner or operator otherwise subject

to this permit, or the owner or operator

is denied for coverage under an

alternative NPDES general permit, the

applicability of this permit to the

individual NPDES permittee is

automatically terminated on the date of

such denial, unless otherwise specified

by the Director.

9.12.4 The Director’s notification

that coverage under an alternative

permit is required does not imply that

any discharge that did not or does not

meet the eligibility requirements of Part

1.2 is or has been covered by this

permit.

9.13 State/Tribal Environmental Laws

9.13.1 Nothing in this permit will be

construed to preclude the institution of

any legal action or relieve you from any

responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties

established pursuant to any applicable

State/Tribal law or regulation under

authority preserved by section 510 of

the Act.

9.13.2 No condition of this permit

releases you from any responsibility or

requirements under other

environmental statutes or regulations.

9.14 Proper Operation and

Maintenance

You must at all times properly operate

and maintain all facilities and systems

of treatment and control (and related

appurtenances) which are installed or

used by you to achieve compliance with

the conditions of this permit and with

the requirements of Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plans. Proper

operation and maintenance also

includes adequate laboratory controls

and appropriate quality assurance

procedures. Proper operation and

maintenance requires the operation of

backup or auxiliary facilities or similar

systems, installed by a permittee only

when necessary to achieve compliance

with the conditions of this permit.

9.15 Inspection and Entry

You must allow the Director or an

authorized representative of EPA, the

State/Tribe, or, in the case of a facility

which discharges through a municipal

separate storm sewer, an authorized

representative of the municipal owner/

operator or the separate storm sewer

receiving the discharge, upon the

presentation of credentials and other

documents as may be required by law,

to:

9.15.1 Enter upon the your premises

where a regulated facility or activity is

located or conducted or where records

must be kept under the conditions of

this permit;

9.15.2 Have access to and copy at

reasonable times, any records that must

be kept under the conditions of this

permit; and

9.15.3 Inspect at reasonable times

any facilities or equipment (including

monitoring and control equipment).

9.16 Monitoring and Records

9.16.1 Representative Samples/

Measurements. Samples and

measurements taken for the purpose of

monitoring must be representative of the

monitored activity.

9.16.2 Retention of Records. 

9.16.2.1 You must retain records of

all monitoring information, and copies

of all monitoring reports required by

this permit for at least three (3) years

from the date of sample, measurement,

evaluation or inspection, or report. This

period may be extended by request of

the Director at any time. Permittees

must submit any such records to the

Director upon request.

9.16.2.2 You must retain the Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan

developed in accordance with Part 4 of

this permit, including the certification

required under Section 2.2.4.3 of this

permit, for at least 3 years after the last

modification or amendment is made to

the plan.

9.16.3 Records Contents. Records of

monitoring information must include:

9.16.3.1 The date, exact place, and

time of sampling or measurements;

9.16.3.2 The initials or name(s) of

the individual(s) who performed the

sampling or measurements;

9.16.3.3 The date(s) analyses were

performed;

9.16.3.4 The time(s) analyses were

initiated;

9.16.3.5 The initials or name(s) of

the individual(s) who performed the

analyses;

9.16.3.6 References and written

procedures, when available, for the

analytical techniques or methods used;

and

9.16.3.7 The results of such

analyses, including the bench sheets,

instrument readouts, computer disks or

tapes, etc., used to determine these

results.

9.16.4 Approved Monitoring

Methods. Monitoring must be conducted

according to test procedures approved

under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test

procedures have been specified in this

permit.

9.17 Permit Actions

This permit may be modified; revoked

and reissued; or terminated for cause.

Your filing of a request for a permit

modification; revocation and reissuance;

or your submittal of a notification of

planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not automatically stay

any permit condition.

10. Reopener Clause

10.1 Water Quality Protection

If there is evidence indicating that the

storm water discharges authorized by

this permit cause, have the reasonable

potential to cause, or contribute to a

violation of a water quality standard,

you may be required to obtain an

individual permit or an alternative

general permit in accordance with Part

3.3 of this permit, or the permit may be

modified to include different limitations

and/or requirements.

10.2 Procedures for Modification or

Revocation

Permit modification or revocation will

be conducted according to 40 CFR

122.62, 122.63, 122.64 and 124.5.

11. Transfer or Termination of

Coverage

11.1 Transfer of Permit Coverage

Automatic transfers of permit

coverage under 40 CFR 122.61(b) are not

allowed for this general permit.

11.1.1 Transfer of coverage from one

operator to a different operator (e.g.,

facility sold to a new company): the new

owner/operator must complete and file

an NOI in accordance with Part 1.3 at

least 2 days prior to taking over

operational control of the facility. The

old owner/operator must file an NOT

(Notice of Termination) within thirty

(30) days after the new owner/operator

has assumed responsibility for the

facility.

11.1.2 Simple name changes of the

permittee (e.g., Company ‘‘A’’ changes

name to ‘‘ABC, Inc.’’ or Company ‘‘B’’

buys out Company ‘‘A’’) may be done by

filing an amended NOI referencing the

facility’s assigned permit number and

requesting a simple name change.

64856 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

11.2 Notice of Termination (NOT)

You must submit a completed Notice

of Termination (NOT) that is signed in

accordance with Part 9.7 when one or

more of the conditions contained in Part

1.4 (Terminating Coverage) have been

met. The NOT form found in

Addendum E will be used unless it has

been replaced by a revised version by

the Director. The Notice of Termination

must include the following information:

11.2.1 The NPDES permit number

for the storm water discharge identified

by the Notice of Termination;

11.2.2 An indication of whether the

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity have been eliminated

(i.e., regulated discharges of storm water

are being terminated); you are no longer

an operator of the facility; or you have

obtained coverage under an alternative

permit;

11.2.3 The name, address and

telephone number of the permittee

submitting the Notice of Termination;

11.2.4 The name and the street

address (or a description of location if

no street address is available) of the

facility for which the notification is

submitted;

11.2.5 The latitude and longitude of

the facility; and

11.2.6 The following certification,

signed in accordance with Part 9.7

(signatory requirements) of this permit.

For facilities with more than one

permittee and/or operator, you need

only make this certification for those

portions of the facility where the you

were authorized under this permit and

not for areas where the you were not an

operator:

I certify under penalty of law that all storm

water discharges associated with industrial

activity from the identified facility that

authorized by a 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.

11.3 Addresses

All Notices of Termination must be

submitted using the form provided by

the Director (or a photocopy thereof) to

the address specified on the NOT form.

11.4 Facilities Eligible for ‘‘No

Exposure’’ Exemption for Storm Water

Permitting

By filing a certification of ‘‘No

Exposure’’ under 40 CFR 122.26(g), you

are automatically removed from permit

coverage and a NOT to terminate permit

coverage is not required.

12. Definitions

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

means schedules of activities,

prohibitions of practices,

maintenance procedures, and other

management practices to prevent or

reduce the discharge of pollutants

to waters of the United States.

BMPs also include treatment

requirements, operating procedures,

and practices to control plant site

runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or

waste disposal, or drainage from

raw material storage.

Commencement of Construction the

initial disturbance of soils

associated with clearing, grading, or

excavating activities or other

construction activities.

Control Measure as used in this permit,

refers to any Best Management

Practice or other method (including

effluent limitations) used to prevent

or reduce the discharge of

pollutants to waters of the United

States.

CWA means the Clean Water Act or the

Federal Water Pollution Control

Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Director means the Regional

Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency or an authorized

representative.

Discharge when used without

qualification means the ‘‘discharge

of a pollutant.’’

Discharge of Storm Water Associated

with Construction Activity as used

in this permit, refers to a discharge

of pollutants in storm water runoff

from areas where soil disturbing

activities (e.g., clearing, grading, or

excavation), construction materials

or equipment storage or

maintenance (e.g., fill piles, borrow

areas, concrete truck washout,

fueling), or other industrial storm

water directly related to the

construction process (e.g., concrete

or asphalt batch plants) are located.

(See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 40

CFR 122.26(b)(15) for the two

regulatory definitions on regulated

storm water associated with

construction sites).

Discharge of Storm Water Associated

with Industrial Activity is defined at

40 CFR 122.26(b)(14).

Facility or Activity means any NPDES

‘‘point source’’ or any other facility

or activity (including land or

appurtenances thereto) that is

subject to regulation under the

NPDES program.

Flow-Weighted Composite Sample

means a composite sample

consisting of a mixture of aliquots

collected at a constant time interval,

where the volume of each aliquot is

proportional to the flow rate of the

discharge.

Indian country, as defined in 18 USC

1151, means: (a) All land within the

limits of any Indian reservation

under the jurisdiction of the United

States Government,

notwithstanding the issuance of any

patent, and including rights-of-way

running through the reservation; (b)

all dependent Indian communities

within the borders of the United

States whether within the original

or subsequently acquired territory

thereof, and whether within or

without the limits of a state; and (c)

all Indian allotments, the Indian

titles to which have not been

extinguished, including rights-ofway running through the same. This

definition includes all land held in

trust for an Indian tribe.

Industrial Activity as used in this permit

refers to the eleven categories of

industrial activities included in the

definition of ‘‘discharges of storm

water associated with industrial

activity’’.

Industrial Storm Water as used in this

permit refers to storm water runoff

associated with the definition of

‘‘discharges of storm water

associated with industrial activity’’.

Large and Medium Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer Systems are defined at

40 CFR 122.26(b)(4) and (7),

respectively and means all

municipal separate storm sewers

that are either:

1. Located in an incorporated place

(city) with a population of 100,000

or more as determined by the 1990

Census by the Bureau of Census

(these cities are listed in

Appendices F and G of 40 CFR

122); or

2. Located in the counties with

unincorporated urbanized

populations of 100,000 or more,

except municipal separate storm

sewers that are located in the

incorporated places, townships or

towns within such counties (these

counties are listed in Appendices H

and I of 40 CFR 122); or

3. Owned or operated by a

municipality other than those

described in paragraph (i) or (ii) and

that are designated by the Director

as part of the large or medium

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64857

municipal separate storm sewer

system.

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer is

defined at 40 CFR 122.26.

No exposure means that all industrial

materials or activities are protected

by a storm resistant shelter to

prevent exposure to rain, snow,

snowmelt and/or runoff.

NOI means Notice of Intent to be

covered by this permit (see Part 2 of

this permit.)

NOT means Notice of Termination (see

Part 11.2 of this permit).

Owner or operator means the owner or

operator of any ‘‘facility or activity’’

subject to regulation under the

NPDES program.

Point source means any discernible,

confined, and discrete conveyance,

including but not limited to, any

pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,

conduit, well, discrete fissure,

container, rolling stock,

concentrated animal feeding

operation, landfill leachate

collection system, vessel or other

floating craft from which pollutants

are or may be discharged. This term

does not include return flows from

irrigated agriculture or agricultural

storm water runoff.

Pollutant is defined at 40 CFR 122.2. A

partial listing from this definition

includes: dredged spoil, solid

waste, sewage, garbage, sewage

sludge, chemical wastes, biological

materials, heat, wrecked or

discarded equipment, rock, sand,

cellar dirt, and industrial or

municipal waste.

Runoff coefficient means the fraction of

total rainfall that will appear at the

conveyance as runoff.

Special Aquatic Sites, as defined at 40

CFR 230.3(q–1), means those sites

identified in 40 CFR 230 Subpart E.

They are geographic areas, large or

small, possessing special ecological

characteristics of productivity,

habitat, wildlife protection, or other

important and easily disrupted

ecological values. These areas are

generally recognized as

significantly influencing or

positively contributing to the

general overall environmental

health or vitality of the entire

ecosystem of a region. (See 40 CFR

230.10(a)(3)).

Storm Water means storm water runoff,

snow melt runoff, and surface

runoff and drainage.

Storm Water Associated with Industrial

Activity refers to storm water, that

if allowed to discharge, would

constitute a ‘‘discharge of storm

water associated with industrial

activity’’ as defined at 40 CFR

122.26(b)(14) and incorporated here

by reference.

Waters of the United States means:

1. All waters which are currently

used, were used in the past, or may

be susceptible to use in interstate or

foreign commerce, including all

waters which are subject to the ebb

and flow of the tide;

2. All interstate waters, including

interstate ‘‘wetlands’’;

3. All other waters such as interstate

lakes, rivers, streams (including

intermittent streams), mudflats,

sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie

potholes, wet meadows, playa

lakes, or natural ponds the use,

degradation, or destruction of

which would affect or could affect

interstate or foreign commerce

including any such waters:

a. Which are or could be used by

interstate or foreign travelers for

recreational or other purposes;

b. From which fish or shellfish are or

could be taken and sold in

interstate or foreign commerce; or

c. Which are used or could be used for

industrial purposes by industries in

interstate commerce;

4. All impoundments of waters

otherwise defined as waters of the

United States under this definition;

5. Tributaries of waters identified in

paragraphs (1) through (4) of this

definition;

6. The territorial sea; and

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other

than waters that are themselves

wetlands) identified in paragraphs

1. through 6. of this definition.

Waste treatment systems, including

treatment ponds or lagoons designed to

meet the requirements of the CWA

(other than cooling ponds for steam

electric generation stations per 40 CFR

423) which also meet the criteria of this

definition) are not waters of the United

States. Waters of the United States do

not include prior converted cropland.

Notwithstanding the determination of

an area’s status as prior converted

cropland by any other federal agency,

for the purposes of the Clean Water Act,

the final authority regarding Clean

Water Act jurisdiction remains with

EPA.

You and Your as used in this permit is

intended to refer to the permittee,

the operator, or the discharger as

the context indicates and that

party’s facility or responsibilities.

The use of ‘‘you’’ and ‘‘your’’ refers

to a particular facility and not to all

facilities operated by a particular

entity. For example, ‘‘you must

submit’’ means the permittee must

submit something for that particular

facility. Likewise, ‘‘all your

discharges’’ would refer only to

discharges at that one facility.

13. Permit Conditions Applicable to

Specific States, Indian Country Lands,

or Territories

The provisions of Part 13 provide

modifications or additions to the

applicable conditions of Parts 1 through

12 of this permit to reflect specific

additional conditions required as part of

the State or Tribal CWA Section 401

certification process, or Coastal Zone

Management Act certification process,

or as otherwise established by the

permitting authority. The additional

revisions and requirements listed below

are set forth in connection with, and

only apply to, the following States,

Indian country lands and Federal

facilities.

13.1 Region 1

13.1.1 CTR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Connecticut.

13.1.2 MAR05*###: Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, except Indian country

lands.

13.1.2.1 Discharges covered by the

general permit must comply with the

provisions of 314 CMR 3.00; 314 CMR

4.00; 314 CMR 9.00; and 310 CMR 10.00

and any other related policies adopted

under the authority of the

Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L.

c.21, ss. 26–53 and Wetlands Protection

Act, M.G.L., s.40. Specifically, new

facilities or the redevelopment of

existing facilities subject to this permit

must comply with applicable storm

water performance standards prescribed

by state regulation or policy. A permit

under 314 CMR 3.04 is not required for

existing facilities which meet state

storm water performance standards. An

application for a permit under 314 CMR

3.00 is required only when required

under 314 CMR 3.04(2)(b) (designation

of a discharge on a case-by-case basis)

or is otherwise identified in 314 CMR

3.00 or Department policy as a discharge

requiring a permit application.

Department regulations and policies

may be obtained through the State

House Bookstore or online at

www.magnet.state.ma.us/dep.

13.1.2.2 The department may

request a copy of the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or

conduct an inspection of any facility

covered by this permit to ensure

compliance with state law requirements,

including state water quality standards.

The Department may enforce its

certification conditions.

13.1.2.3 The results of any quarterly

monitoring required by this permit must

be sent to the appropriate Regional

64858 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Office of the Department where the

monitoring identifies violations of

effluent limits or benchmarks for any

parameter for which monitoring is

required under this permit.

13.1.3 MAR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

13.1.4 MER05*###: State of Maine,

except Indian country lands.

13.1.5 MER05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Maine.

13.1.6 NHR05*###: State of New

Hampshire.

13.1.7 RIR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Rhode Island.

13.1.8 VTR05*##F: Federal Facilities

in the State of Vermont.

13.2. Region 2

13.2.1 PRR05*###: The

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. No

additional requirements

13.3 Region 3

13.3.1 DCR05*###: The District of

Columbia.

13.3.2 DER05*##F: Federal Facilities

in the State of Delaware.

13.4 Region 4

13.4.1 ALR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Alabama.

13.4.2 FLR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Florida.

13.4.3 MSR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Mississippi.

13.4.4 NCR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of North Carolina.

13.5 Region 5

Permit coverage not available.

13.6 Region 6

13.6.1 LAR05*##I: Indian Country

lands within the State of Louisiana. No

additional requirements.

13.6.2 NMR05*###: The State of

New Mexico, except Indian Country

lands.

13.6.2.1 Discharges to Water Quality

Impaired/Water Quality Limited Waters:

Any operator who intends to obtain

authorization under the MSGP for all

new and existing storm water discharges

to water quality-impaired (303(d))

waters (see http://

www.nmenv.state.nm.us/) from facilities

where there is a reasonable potential to

contain pollutants for which the

receiving water is impaired must satisfy

the following conditions prior to the

authorization. Signature of the NOI

(which includes certifying eligibility for

permit coverage) will be deemed the

operator’s certification that this

eligibility requirement has been

satisfied.

13.6.2.1.1 Prior to submitting a

Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage

under the MSGP, provide an estimate of

pollutant loads in storm water

discharges from the facility to the New

Mexico Environment Department,

Surface Water Quality Bureau (SWQB).

This estimate must include the

documentation upon which the estimate

is based (e.g., sampling data from the

facility, sampling data from

substantially identical outfalls at similar

facilities, modeling, etc.). Existing

facilities must base this estimate on

actual analytical data, if available.

13.6.2.1.2 Eligibility Requirements

for New Discharges.

13.6.2.1.2.1 If a Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) has been developed,

permit coverage is available only if the

operator has received notice from the

SWQB confirming eligibility.

Note: Following receipt of the information

required under Part 13.6.2.1.1, SWQB

anticipates using the following process in

making eligibility determinations for new

discharges into 303(d) waters where a TMDL

has been developed:

• SWQB will notify the facility

operator and EPA that the estimated

pollutant load is consistent with the

TMDL and that the proposed storm

water discharges meet the eligibility

requirements of Part 1.2.3.8 of the

MSGP and may be authorized under this

NPDES permit; or

• SWQB will notify the facility

operator and EPA that the estimated

pollutant load is not consistent with the

TMDL and that the proposed storm

water discharges do not meet the

eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.8 of

the MSGP and can not be authorized

under this NPDES permit.

13.6.2.1.2.2 If a Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) has not been

developed, permit coverage is not

available under this permit for

discharges to 303(d) waters and the

operator must seek coverage under a

separate permit.

Note: Following receipt of the information

required under Part 13.6.2.1.1, SWQB

anticipates using the following process in

making eligibility determinations for new

discharges into 303(d) waters where a TMDL

has not yet been developed: SWQB will

notify the facility operator and EPA that the

proposed storm water discharges do not meet

the eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.8 of

the MSGP and can not be authorized under

this NPDES permit.

13.6.2.1.3 Eligibility Requirements

for Existing Discharges:

13.6.2.1.3.1 If a Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) has been developed,

permit coverage is available only if the

operator has received notice from the

SWQB confirming eligibility.

Note: Following receipt of the information

required under Part 13.6.2.1.1, SWQB

anticipates using the following process in

making eligibility determinations for existing

discharges into 303(d) waters where a TMDL

has been developed:

• SWQB will notify the facility operator

and EPA that the estimated pollutant load is

consistent with the TMDL and that the

proposed storm water discharges meet the

eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.8 of the

MSGP and may be authorized under this

NPDES permit; or

• SWQB will notify the facility operator

and EPA that the estimated pollutant load is

not consistent with the TMDL and that the

proposed storm water discharges do not meet

the eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.8 of

the MSGP and can not be authorized under

this NPDES permit.

13.6.2.1.3.2 If a Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) has not been

developed at the time of permit

authorization, but is later developed

during the term of this permit and

identifies existing permitted discharges

as having a reasonable potential to

contain pollutants for which the

receiving water is impaired, these

discharges shall no longer be authorized

by this permit unless, following

notification by the SWQP:

• The operator completes revisions to

his/her Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include

additional and/or modified Best

Management Practices (BMPs) designed

to comply with any applicable Waste

Load Allocation (WLA) established his/

her discharges within 14 calendar days

following notification by SWQB; and

• The operator implements the

additional and/or modified BMPs before

the next anticipated discharge following

revision of the SWPPP; and

• A report is submitted to SWQB

which documents actions taken to

comply with this condition, including

estimated pollutant loads, within 30

calendar days following implementation

of the additional and/or modified BMPs.

13.6.2.1.4 Additional Monitoring—

perform analytical monitoring for each

outfall at least annually for any

pollutant(s) for which the 303(d) water

is impaired where there is a reasonable

potential for discharges to contain any

or all of these pollutants. Submit

monitoring results to SWQB within 45

calendar days following sample

collection. These monitoring

requirements are not eligible for any

waivers listed elsewhere in the permit.

13.6.2.2 Permit Eligibility Regarding

Protection of Water Quality Standards

and Compliance with State Antidegradation Requirements: Storm water

discharges associated with industrial

activity to 303(d) waters as well as all

other ‘‘waters of the State’’ that SWQB

has determined to be or may reasonably

be expected to be contributing to a

violation of a water quality standard

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64859

and/or that do not comply with the

applicable anti-degradation provisions

of the State’s WQS are not authorized by

this permit.

Note: Upon receipt of this determination,

NMED anticipates that, within a reasonable

period of time, EPA will notify the general

permittee to apply for and obtain an

individual NPDES permit for these

discharges per 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3).

13.6.2.3 Signed Copies of discharge

monitoring reports, individual permit

applications, the data and reports

addressed in Part 13.6.2.1, and all other

reports required herein, shall be

submitted to the appropriate state office

address: New Mexico—Program

Manager, Point Source Regulation

Section, Surface Water Quality Bureau,

New Mexico Environment Department,

P.O. Box 26110, Santa Fe, New Mexico

87502.

13.6.3. NMR05*##I: Indian Country

lands in the State of New Mexico,

except Navajo Reservation lands (see

Region 9) and Ute Mountain Reservation

lands (see Region 8).

13.6.3.1 Pueblo of Isleta The

following conditions apply only to

discharges on the Pueblo of Isleta.

13.6.3.1.1 Copies of ‘‘Certification of

Eligibility of Coverage’’ under Part

1.2.3.6.3 (Endangered Species) and Part

1.2.3.7 (Historical Properties), and their

justifications, must be provided to the

Tribe 10 days prior to filing the Notice

of Intent (NOI).

13.6.3.1.2 A copy of the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

must be provided to the Tribe 5 days

prior to filing the NOI.

13.6.3.1.3 A copy of the NOI must be

provided to the Tribe at the same time

it is sent to the Environmental

Protection Agency.

13.6.3.1.4 A copy of the Notice of

Termination (NOT) must be provided to

the Tribe at the same time it is sent to

the Environmental Protection Agency.

13.6.3.1.5 Any notice of release of

hazardous substances (Part 3.1.2) shall

also be sent to the Tribe at the same time

it is sent to the Environmental

Protection Agency. Notification of a

release of hazardous substances shall

also be made to the Pueblo’s Police

Department (505–869–3030) or

Governor’s Office (505–869–3111) or

Environment Department (505–869–

5748).

13.6.3.1.6 Copies of all ‘‘Routine

Inspection Reports: (Part 4.2.7.2.1.5) and

‘‘Comprehensive Inspection Reports’’

(Part 4.9) shall be sent to the Tribe

within 5 days of completion.

13.6.3.1.7 All analytical data (e.g.,

Discharge Monitoring Reports, etc.)

shall be provided to the Tribe at the

same time it is provided to the EPA.

13.6.3.1.8 Exceedance of any EPAestablished ‘‘Benchmark Value’’ for any

pollutant will require quarterly

monitoring for that pollutant until such

time as analytical results from 4

consecutive quarters are below the

‘‘Benchmark.’’

13.6.3.1.9 Any permittee in Sector F

shall monitor for all Clean Water Act

Section 307(a) priority pollutants used

in any of their processes. Monitoring

shall be on a quarterly basis.

13.6.3.1.10 Any permittee in Sector

M shall monitor for total oil & grease,

glycols, and those solvents regulated

under Safe Drinking Water Act

mandates at 40 CFR 141.61(a) in

addition to those parameters identified

in Table M–1. Monitoring shall be on a

quarterly basis.

13.6.3.1.11 Any permittee in Sector

N shall monitor for PCBs in addition to

those parameters identified in Table N–

1. Monitoring shall be on a quarterly

basis.

13.6.3.1.12 All written reports shall

be sent to: Director, Environment

Department, Pueblo of Isleta, Isleta, NM

87022.

13.6.3.2 Pueblo of Nambe. The

following conditions apply only to

discharges on the Pueblo of Nambe.

No additional requirements.

13.6.3.3 Pueblo of Picuris. The

following conditions apply only to

discharges on the Pueblo of Picuris.

13.6.3.4 Pueblo of Pojoaque. The

following conditions apply only to

discharges on the Pueblo of Pojoaque.

13.6.3.4.1 Notices of Intent (NOI)

and notices of Termination (NOT) shall

be submitted to the Pueblo of Pojoaque

Environment Department at the same

time they are submitted to EPA.

13.6.3.4.2 Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plans (SWPPP) shall be

submitted to the Pueblo of Pojoaque

Environment Department 30 days before

commencement of the project.

13.6.3.4.3 If requested by the Pueblo

of Pojoaque Environment Department

(PPED), the permittee shall provide

additional information necessary for a

‘‘case by case’’ eligibility determination

to assure compliance with Pojoaque

Pueblo Water Quality Standards.

Note: Upon receipt of an determination by

the Pueblo of Pojoaque that discharges from

a facility have the reasonable potential to be

causing or contributing to a violation of

Pojoaque Pueblo Water Quality Standards,

EPA would notify the general permittee to

either improve their Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan to achieve compliance with

Pojoaque Pueblo Water Quality Standards or

apply for and obtain an individual NPDES

permit for these discharges per 40 CFR

122.28(b)(3).

13.6.3.4.4 All written reports shall

be sent to: Pueblo of Pojoaque

Environment Department, 2 W.

Gutierrez, Santa Fe, NM 87501; Phone

(505) 455–2087; FAX (505) 455–2177.

13.6.3.5 Pueblo of San Juan. The

following conditions apply only to

discharges on the Pueblo of San Juan.

13.6.3.5.1 Copies of the Notice of

Intent (NOI) and Notice of Termination

(NOT) shall be provided to the Pueblo

five (5) days prior to the time it is

provided to the Environmental

Protection Agency. A copy of the Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall

be provided to the Pueblo five (5) days

prior to the time the NOI is submitted

to the Environmental Protection

Agency.

13.6.3.5.2 All analytical data (e.g.,

Discharge Monitoring Reports, etc.)

shall be provided to the Pueblo at the

same time it is provided to the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Monitoring activities must be

coordinated with the Director of the

Environment Department to insure

consistency with the Pueblo of San Juan

Surface Water Quality Monitoring

Program.

13.6.3.5.3 Copies of all written

reports required under the permit shall

be sent to: Director, Environment

Department, San Juan Pueblo, P.O. Box

717, San Juan Pueblo, NM 87566. For

questions or coordination, you may

contact the Director at (505) 852–4212.

13.6.3.6 Pueblo of Sandia. The

following conditions apply only to

discharges on the Pueblo of Sandia.

13.6.3.6.1 Copies of the Notice of

Intent (NOI) and Notice of Termination

(NOT) shall be provided to the Pueblo

at the same time it is provided to the

Environmental Protection Agency. A

copy of the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan must also be provided

to the Pueblo at the time the NOI is

submitted.

13.6.3.6.2 All analytical data (e.g.,

Discharge Monitoring Reports, etc) shall

be provided to the Pueblo at the same

time it is provided to the Environmental

Protection Agency.

13.6.3.6.3 All written reports shall

be sent to: Director, Environment

Department, Pueblo of Sandia, Box

6008, Bernalillo, NM 87004.

13.6.3.7 Pueblo of Tesuque. The

following conditions apply only to

discharges on the Pueblo of Tesuque. No

additional requirements.

13.6.3.8 Santa Clara Pueblo. The

following conditions apply only to

discharges on the Santa Clara Pueblo.

No additional requirements.

13.6.3.9 All Other Indian Country

lands in New Mexico. No additional

requirements.

64860 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

13.6.4. OKR05*##I: Indian Country

lands within the State of Oklahoma. No

additional requirements.

13.6.5. OKR05*##F: Facilities in the

State of Oklahoma not under the

jurisdiction of the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality,

except those on Indian Country lands.

13.6.5.1 Ineligible Discharges to the

Oklahoma Scenic Rivers System and

Outstanding Resource Waters—New or

proposed discharges to the Oklahoma

Scenic Rivers System, including the

Illinois River, Flint Creek, Barren Fork

Creek, Mountain Fork, Little Lee Creek,

and Big Lee Creek or to any water

designated an ‘‘Outstanding Resource

Water’’ (ORW) in Oklahoma’s Water

Quality Standards are not eligible for

coverage under the MSGP. Existing

discharges of storm water in these

watersheds may be permitted under the

MSGP only from point sources existing

as of June 25, 1992, whether or not such

storm water discharges were permitted

as point sources prior to June 25, 1992.

13.6.6. TXR05*###: The State of

Texas, except Indian Country lands.

13.6.6.1 The following limitations,

independently required under the Texas

Water Quality Standards (31 TAC

319.22 and 319.23), apply to discharges

authorized by the permit:

13.6.6.1.1 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 average

Daily composite Single 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

13.6.6.1.2All Discharges to Tidal Waters: The maximum allowable concentrations of each of the hazardous metals,

stated in terms of milligrams per liter (mg/l), for discharges to tidal waters are as follows:

Total metal Monthly average

Daily composite Single 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 ...................................................................................................................................... 0.10 0.2 0.3

Silver ............................................................................................................................................ 0.05 0.1 0.2

Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 1.0 2.0 6.0

13.6.6.1.3 Definitions:

Inland Waters—all surface waters in

the State other than ‘‘tidal waters’’ as

defined below.

Tidal Waters—those waters of the

Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of

the State of Texas, bays and estuaries

thereto, and those portions of the river

systems which are subject to the ebb

and flow of the tides, and to the

intrusion of marine waters.

13.6.7. TXR05*##I: Indian Country

lands within the State of Texas. No

additional requirements.

13.7. Region 7. Permit Coverage Not

Available.

13.8. Region 8.

13.8.1. COR05*##F: Federal

Facilities in the State of Colorado,

except those located on Indian country

lands.

13.8.2. COR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Colorado,

including the portion of the Ute

Mountain Reservation located in New

Mexico.

13.8.3. MTR05*##I: Reserved

13.8.4. NDR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of North Dakota,

including that portion of the Standing

Rock Reservation located in South

Dakota except for the Lake Traverse

Reservation which is covered under

South Dakota permit SDR05*##I listed

below.

13.8.5. SDR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of South Dakota,

including the portion of the Pine Ridge

Reservation located in Nebraska and the

portion of the Lake Traverse Reservation

located in North Dakota except for the

Standing Rock Reservation which is

covered under North Dakota permit

NDR05*##I listed above.

13.8.6. UTR05*##I: Indian country

lands in the State of Utah, except

Goshute and Navajo reservation lands

(see Region 9).

13.8.7. WYR05*##I: Indian country

lands in the State of Wyoming.

13.9. Region 9. 

13.9.1. ASR05*###: The Island of

American Samoa.

13.9.1.1. Copies of NOIs shall also

be submitted to the American Samoa

Environmental Protection Agency at the

following address concurrently with

NOI submittal to EPA: American Samoa

Environmental Protection Agency,

Executive Office Building, Pago Pago,

American Samoa 96799.

13.9.1.2. Updated storm water

pollution prevention plans must be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64861

submitted to the American Samoa

Environmental Protection Agency at the

following address for review and

approval as soon as they are completed:

American Samoa Environmental

Protection Agency, Executive Office

Building, Pago Pago, American Samoa

96799.

13.9.2. AZR05*###: The State of

Arizona, except Indian country lands.

13.9.2.1. Discharges authorized by

this permit shall not cause or contribute

to a violation of any applicable water

quality standard of the State of Arizona

(Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18,

Chapter 11).

13.9.2.2. Notices of Intent (NOIs)

shall also be submitted to the State of

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality at the following address: Storm

Water Coordinator, Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality, 3033 N.

Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

85012. NOIs submitted to the State of

Arizona shall include the well

registration number if storm water

associated with industrial activity is

discharged to a dry well or an injection

well.

13.9.2.3. Notices of Termination

(NOTs) shall also be submitted to the

State of Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality at the following

address: Storm Water Coordinator,

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 N. Central Avenue,

Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

13.9.2.4. For facilities which submit

a no exposure certification in

accordance with Part 1.5 of the permit,

the operator shall submit a copy of the

no exposure certification to the State of

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality at the following address: Storm

Water Coordinator, Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality, 3033 N.

Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

85012.

13.9.2.5. SARA Section 313

(Community Right to Know) facilities

shall have the following requirement:

Liquid storage areas for Section 313

water priority chemicals shall be

operated to minimize discharges of such

chemicals. Appropriate measures to

minimize discharges of Section 313

chemicals shall include: provision of

secondary containment for at least the

entire contents of the largest tank plus

sufficient freeboard to allow for the 25-

year, 24-hour precipitation event; a

strong spill contingency and integrity

testing plan, and/or other equivalent

measures.

13.9.2.6. Delineation of Facility

Areas Within the 100-Year Floodplain.

All facilities or any portion of a facility

that is located at or within the 100-year

floodplain shall be delineated on the

site map. The base flood elevation, if

known, shall also be reported.

13.9.2.7. Facilities subject to

monitoring and reporting requirements

shall also submit Discharge Monitoring

Report Form(s) (DMR) and other

required monitoring information to the

State of Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality at the following

address: Storm Water DMR Coordinator,

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 N. Central Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

13.9.2.8. The term ‘‘Significant

Sources of Non-Storm Water’’ includes,

but is not limited to discharges which

could cause or contribute to violations

of water quality standards of the State

of Arizona, and discharges which could

include releases of oil or hazardous

substances in excess of reportable

quantities under Section 311 of the

Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR 110.10 and

CFR 117.21) or Section 102 of CERCLA

(see CFR 302.4).

13.9.2.9. The term ‘‘Base Flood

Elevation’’ as defined by Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) is the height of the base (100-

year) flood in relation to a specified

datum, usually the National Geodetic

Vertical Datum of 1929 of North

American Vertical Datum of 1988. This

is the elevation of the 100-year flood

waters relative to ‘‘mean sea level.’’

13.9.2.10. The term ‘‘100-year flood’’

means the flood having a one percent

chance of being equaled or exceeded in

magnitude in any given year.

13.9.2.11. The term ‘‘100-year

floodplain’’ means that area adjoining a

river, stream, or watercourse covered by

water in the event of a 100-year flood.

13.9.3. AZR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Arizona,

including Navajo Reservation lands in

New Mexico and Utah.

13.9.3.1. White Mountain Apache

Tribe. The following condition applies

only on the White Mountain Apache

Tribe: All NOIs for proposed storm

water discharge coverage shall be

provided to the following address:

Tribal Environmental Planning Office,

Attn: Brenda Pusher-Begay, P.O. Box

1000, Whiteriver, AZ 85941.

13.9.4. CAR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of California No

additional requirements.

13.9.5. GUR05*###: The Island of

Guam.

13.9.5.1. Facilities ineligible for

Multi-Sector General Permit coverage

which are required to submit an

individual NPDES permit application

must send a copy to the following

address at the time of submittal to EPA:

Guam Environmental Protection

Agency, P.O. Box 22439 GMF,

Barrigada, Guam 96921.

13.9.5.2. Copies of NOIs shall also

be submitted to the following address

concurrently with NOI submittal to

EPA: Guam Environmental Protection

Agency, P.O. Box 22439 GMF,

Barrigada, Guam 96921.

13.9.5.3. Permittees required by the

Director to submit an individual NPDES

permit application or alternative general

NPDES permit application must send a

copy to the following address at the

time of submittal to EPA: Guam

Environmental Protection Agency, P.O.

Box 22439 GMF, Barrigada, Guam

96921.

13.9.6. JAR05*###: Johnston Atoll.

No additional requirements.

13.9.7. MWR05*###: Midway Island

and Wake Island. No additional

requirements.

13.9.8. NIR05*###: Commonwealth

of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

13.9.8.1. All conditions and

requirements set forth in the USEPA

final NPDES MSGP must be complied

with.

13.9.8.2. A storm water pollution

prevention plan (SWPPP) for storm

water discharges associated with

industrial activity must be approved by

the Director of the CNMI DEQ prior to

the submission of the NOI to USEPA.

The CNMI address for the submittal of

the SWPPP for approval is:

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, Office of the Governor, Director,

Division of Environmental Quality

(DEQ), P.O. Box 501304 C.K., Saipan,

MP 96950–1304.

13.9.8.3. An NOI to be covered by

the storm water MSGP for discharges

associated with industrial activity must

be submitted to CNMI DEQ (use above

address) and USEPA, Region 9, in the

form prescribed by USEPA,

accompanied by a SWPPP approval

letter from CNMI DEQ.

13.9.8.4. The NOI must be

postmarked seven (7) calendar days

prior to any stormwater discharges and

a copy must be submitted to the Director

of CNMI DEQ (use above address) no

later than seven (7) calendar days prior

to any stormwater discharges.

13.9.8.5. All monitoring reports

required by the MSGP must be

submitted to CNMI DEQ (use above

address).

13.9.8.6. In accordance with section

10.3(h) and (i) of CNMI water quality

standards, CNMI DEQ reserves the right

to deny coverage under the MSGP and

to require submittal of an application for

an individual NPDES permit based on a

review of the NOI or other information

made available to the Director.

64862 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

1Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person from

‘‘taking’’ a listed species (e.g., harassing or harming

it) unless: (1) the taking is authorized through a

‘‘incidental take statement’’ as part of undergoing

ESA section 7 formal consultation; (2) where an

incidental take permit is obtained under ESA

section 10 (which requires the development of a

habitat conservation plan); or (3) where otherwise

authorized or exempted under the ESA. This

prohibition applies to all entities including private

individuals, businesses, and governments.

13.9.9. NVR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Nevada,

including the Duck Valley Reservation

in Idaho, the Fort McDermitt

Reservation in Oregon and the Goshute

Reservation in Utah. No additional

requirements.

13.10. Region 10. 

13.10.1. (The terms and conditions

of the 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit

are effective for facilities in the State of

Alaska through February 9, 2001.)

13.10.2. AKR05*##I: Indian country

Lands within the State of Alaska.

13.10.3. IDR05*### The State of

Idaho, except Indian country lands.

13.10.4. IDR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Idaho, except

Duck Valley Reservation lands (see

Region 9).

13.10.5. ORR05*##I: Indian country

lands in the State of Oregon except Fort

McDermitt Reservation lands (see

Region 9).

13.10.6. WAR05*##I: Indian country

lands within the State of Washington

13.10.6.1 Permittees on Chehalis

Reservation lands must also meet the

following conditions:

1. The permittee shall be responsible

for achieving compliance with

Confederated Tribes of Chehalis

Reservation’s Water Quality Standards,

and

2. The permittee shall be responsible

for submitting all Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plans to the Chehalis Tribal

Department of Natural Resources at the

following address for review and

approval prior to the beginning of any

discharge activities taking place:

Confederated Tribes of Chehalis

Reservation, Department of Natural

Resources, 420 Howanut Road, Oakville,

WA 98568.

13.10.6.2 Permittees on Puyallup

Reservation lands must also meet the

following conditions:

1. The permittee shall be responsible

for achieving compliance with Puyallup

Tribe’s Water Quality Standards;

2. The permittee shall submit a copy

of the Notice of Intent to be covered by

the general permit to the Puyallup Tribe

Environmental Department at the

address listed below at the same time it

is submitted to U.S. EPA;

3. The permittee shall be responsible

for submitting all Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plans to the Puyallup Tribe

Environmental Department at the

following address for review and

approval prior to the beginning of any

discharge activities taking place:

Puyallup Tribe Environmental

Department, 2002 East 28th Street,

Tacoma, WA 98404.

13.10.7. WAR05*##F: Federal

Facilities in the State of Washington,

except those located on Indian country

lands.

13.10.7.1 Discharges authorized by

this permit shall not cause or contribute

to a violation of any applicable water

quality standard of the State of

Washington. These standards are found

at Chapter 173–201A WAC (Water

Quality Standards for Surface Waters),

Chapter 173–204 WAC (Sediment

Management Standards) and the

National Toxics Rule for human health

standards (57 FR 60848–60923).

13.10.7.2 Any operator of a facility

in Sectors A, D, E, F, G, H, J, L, M, N,

or U who intends to obtain

authorization under the MSGP–2000 for

all new and existing storm water

discharges must conduct and report

benchmark monitoring for turbidity

with a cutoff concentration of 50 NTU.

Addendum A—Endangered Species

Guidance

I. Assessing Permit Eligibility Regarding

Endangered Species

A. Background

To meet its obligations under the Clean

Water Act and the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) and to promote those Acts’ goals, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is

seeking to ensure the activities regulated by

this Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)

pose no jeopardy to endangered and

threatened species and critical habitat. To

ensure that those goals are met, applicants for

MSGP coverage are required under Part

1.2.3.6 to assess the impacts of their storm

water discharges, allowable non-storm water

discharges, and discharge-related activities

on Federally listed endangered and

threatened species (‘‘listed species’’) and

designated critical habitat (‘‘critical habitat’’)

by following the process listed below. EPA

strongly recommends that you follow these

steps at the earliest possible stage to ensure

that measures to protect listed species and

critical habitat are incorporated early in your

planning process.

You also have an independent ESA

obligation to ensure that your activities do

not result in any prohibited ‘‘takes’’ of listed

species.1 Many of the measures required in

the MSGP and in these instructions to protect

species may also assist you in ensuring that

your activities do not result in a prohibited

take of species in violation of section 9 of the

ESA. If you have or plan activities in areas

that harbor endangered and threatened

species, you may wish to ensure that you are

protected from potential takings liability

under ESA section 9 by obtaining an ESA

section 10 permit or, if there is a separate

federal action regarding the facility, by

requesting formal consultation under ESA

section 7 regarding that action. If you are not

sure whether to pursue a section 10 permit

or a section 7 consultation for takings

protection, you should confer with the

appropriate Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

and/or National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) (collectively the ‘‘Services’’) office.

B. How Does The Basic Eligibility Assessment

Process Work?

In order to determine if you are eligible to

use the permit, you need to go through a

series of steps to determine:

1. Are there any listed endangered or

threatened species or critical habitat in

proximity to your facility or the point where

your discharges reach a receiving water?

2. If there are listed species in proximity,

are your discharges or discharge-related

activities going to adversely affect them?

3. If adverse effects on listed species or

critical habitat are likely, what can you do to

eliminate or reduce these effects?

4. Have any adverse effects already been

addressed under the Endangered Species

Act?

5. Which, if any, of the eligibility criteria

make you eligible for permit coverage?

C. What Are the Eligibility Criteria?

The Part 1.2.3.6 eligibility requirement

may be satisfied by documenting that one or

more of the following criteria has been met:

Criteria A. No Listed Species or Critical

Habitat Are in Proximity to Your Facility or

the Point Where Authorized Discharges

Reach a Water of the United States (See Part

1.2.3.6.3.1)

Using the latest County Species List

available from EPA and any other relevant

information sources, you have determined

that no listed species or critical habitat are

in proximity to your facility. Listed species

and critical habitat are in proximity to a

facility when they are:

• Located in the path or immediate area

through which or over which contaminated

point source storm water flows from

industrial activities to the point of discharge

into the receiving water. This may also

include areas where storm water from your

facility enters groundwater that has a direct

hydrological connection to a receiving water

(e.g., groundwater infiltrates at your facility

and re-emerges to enter a surface waterbody

within a short period of time.)

• Located in the immediate vicinity of, or

nearby, the point of discharge into receiving

waters.

• Located in the area of a facility where

storm water BMPs are planned or are to be

constructed.

Please be aware that no protection from

incidental takings liability is provided under

this criteria.

Criteria B. An ESA Section 7 Consultation

Has Been Performed for a Separate Federal

Action Regarding Your Facility (See Part

1.2.3.6.3.2)

A formal or informal ESA § 7 consultation

on a separate federal action (e.g., New Source

review under NEPA, application for a dredge

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64863

and fill permit under CWA § 404, application

for an individual NPDES permit, etc.)

addressed the effects of your discharges and

discharge-related activities on listed species

and critical habitat. If your facility was the

subject of a formal consultation, it must have

resulted in either a ‘‘no jeopardy opinion’’ or

a ‘‘jeopardy opinion’’ and you agree to

implement any reasonable and prudent

alternatives or other conditions upon which

the consultation was based. If your facility

was the subject of an informal consultation,

it must have resulted in a written

concurrence by the Service(s) on a finding

that the applicant’s activities are not likely to

adversely affect listed species or critical

habitat (for informal consultation, see 50 CFR

402.13).

Criteria C. An Incidental Taking Permit

Under Section 10 of the ESA was Issued for

Your Facility (See Part 1.2.3.6.3.3)

You have a permit under section 10 of the

ESA and that authorization addresses the

effects of your wastewater and storm water

discharges and discharge-related activities on

listed species and critical habitat. Note: You

must follow FWS/NMFS procedures when

applying for an ESA section 10 permit (see

50 CFR 17.22(b)(1)).

Criteria D. You Have Determined Adverse

Effects Are Not Likely (See Part 1.2.3.6.3.4)

Using best judgment, you have investigated

potential effects your discharges and

discharges-related activities may have on

listed species and critical habitat and have no

reason to believe there would be adverse

effects. Any terms and/or conditions to

protect listed species and critical habitat you

relied on in order to determine adverse

effects would be unlikely must be

incorporated into your Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (required by the permit) and

implemented in order to maintain permit

eligibility.

Please be aware that no protection from

incidental takings liability is provided under

this criteria.

Criteria E. Your Facility Was Covered Under

the Eligibility Certification of Another

Operator for the Facility Area (See Part

1.2.3.6.3.5)

Your storm water discharges, allowable

non-storm water discharges, and dischargerelated activities were already addressed in

another operator’s certification of eligibility

under Part 1.2.3.6.3 which covered your

facility. By certifying eligibility under Part

1.2.3.6.3.4, you agree to comply with any

measures or controls upon which the other

operator’s certification under Part 1.2.3.6.3

was based.

Please be aware that in order to meet the

permit eligibility requirements by relying on

another operator’s certification of eligibility,

the other operator’s certification must apply

to the location of your facility and must

address the effects from your storm water

discharges, allowable non-storm water

discharges, and discharge-related activities

on listed species and critical habitat. This

situation will typically occur where an

ownership of a facility covered by this permit

changes or when there are multiple operators

within an industrial park or an airport.

However, before you rely on another

operator’s certification, you should carefully

review that certification along with any

supporting information. You also need to

confirm that no additional species have been

listed or critical habitat designated in the

area of your facility since the other operator’s

endangered species assessment was done. If

you do not believe that the other operator’s

certification provides adequate coverage for

your facility, you should provide your own

independent endangered species assessment

and certification.

Please be aware that no protection from

incidental takings liability is provided under

this criteria.

D. What Procedures Do I Use To Determine

if the Eligibility Criteria Can Be Satisfied?

Caution: Additional endangered and

threatened species have been listed and

critical habit designated since the 1995

MSGP was issued and will continue to be

added after the effective date of this permit.

You must verify any earlier determination of

eligibility is still valid before relying on that

assessment to certify eligibility for this

permit. Where applicable, you may

incorporate information from your previous

endangered species analysis in your

documentation of eligibility for this permit.

To determine eligibility, you must assess

(or have previously assessed) the potential

effects of your storm water discharges,

allowable non-storm water discharges and

discharge-related activities on listed species

and critical habitat. PRIOR to completing and

submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) form, you

must follow the steps outlined below and

document the results of your eligibility

determination.

Step One: Are There Any Endangered

Species or Critical Habitat in Your County

(or Other Area) and, if so, Are They in

Proximity to Your Facility or Discharge

Locations?

1–A. Check for Listed Species Look in the

latest county species list to see if any listed

species are found where your facility and

discharge point(s) are located. If you are

located close to the border of a county or

your facility is located in one county and

your discharge points are located in another,

you must look under both counties. Since

species are listed and de-listed periodically,

you will need the most current list at the

time you are doing your endangered species

assessment. EPA’s most current countyspecies list is on the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/owm/esalst2.htm.

=>Proceed to 1–B.

1–B. Check for Critical Habitat Some (but

not all) listed species have designated critical

habitat. Exact locations of such habitat is

provided in the endangered species

regulations at 50 CFR part 17 and part 226.

To determine if facility or discharge locations

are within designated critical habitat, you

should either:

• Review those regulations (which can be

found in many larger libraries); or

• Contact the nearest Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) Office. A list of FWS and

NMFS offices is found at section II of this

Addendum.; or

• Contact the State Natural Heritage

centers. These centers compile and

disseminate information on Federally listed

and other protected species. They frequently

have the most current information on listed

species and critical habitat. A list of these

centers is provided in section III of the

Addendum.

=>Proceed to 1–C.

1–C. Check for Proximity If there are listed

species in your county, are they in proximity

to your facility or discharge locations? You

will need to use the proximity criteria in

Eligibility Criteria A to determine if the listed

species are in your part of the county. The

area in proximity to be searched/surveyed for

listed species will vary with the size of the

facility, the nature and quantity of the storm

water discharges, and the type of receiving

waters. Given the number of facilities

potentially covered by the MSGP, no specific

method to determine whether species are in

proximity is required for permit coverage

under the MSGP. Instead, you should use the

method or methods which best allow you to

determine to the best of your knowledge

whether species are in proximity to your

particular facility. These methods may

include:

• Conducting visual inspections. This

method may be particularly suitable for

facilities that are smaller in size, facilities

located in non-natural settings such as highly

urbanized areas or industrial parks where

there is little or no nature habitat; and

facilities that discharge directly into

municipal storm water collection systems.

For other facilities, a visual survey of the

facility site and storm water drainage areas

may be insufficient to determine whether

species are likely to be located in proximity

to the discharge.

• Contacting the nearest State Wildlife

Agency or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) offices. Many endangered and

threatened species are found in well-defined

areas or habitats. That information is

frequently known to state or federal wildlife

agencies. FWS has offices in every state.

NMFS has regional offices in: Gloucester,

Massachusetts; St. Petersburg, Florida; Long

Beach, California; Portland, Oregon; and

Juneau, Alaska.

• Contacting local/regional conservation

groups. These groups inventory species and

their locations and maintain lists of sightings

and habitats.

• Conducting a formal biological survey.

Larger facilities with extensive storm water

discharges may choose to conduct biological

surveys as the most effective way to assess

whether species are located in proximity and

whether there are likely adverse effects.

If neither your facility nor discharge

locations are located in designated critical

habitat, then you need not consider impacts

to critical habitat when following Steps Two

through Five below. If your facility or

discharge locations are located within critical

habitat, then you must look at impacts to

critical habitat when following Steps Two

through Five. EPA notes that many measures

imposed to protect listed species under these

64864 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

steps will also protect critical habitat.

However, obligations to protect habitat under

this permit are separate from those to protect

listed species. Thus, meeting the eligibility

requirements of this permit may require

measures to protect critical habitat that are

separate from those to protect listed species.

=> Proceed to 1–D

1–D. Check for Criteria ‘‘A’’ Eligibility IF

NO SPECIES WERE LISTED FOR YOUR

COUNTY OR THE SPECIES THAT WERE

LISTED WERE NOT IN PROXIMITY TO

YOUR DISCHARGE AND YOUR FACILITY

AND DISCHARGE LOCATIONS WERE NOT

IN PROXIMITY TO CRITICAL HABITAT,

YOU ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER CRITERIA ‘‘A’’.

Document your endangered species

assessment and certify eligibility under Part

1.2.3.6.3.1 of the permit. Congratulations, go

to Step Five!

=> If there were listed species or critical

habitat, proceed to Step Two

Step Two: Can You Meet Eligibility Criteria

‘‘B’’, ‘‘C’’, or ‘‘E’’?

2–A Check for Criteria ‘‘B’’, ‘‘C’’, or ‘‘E’’

Basis Do one of the following apply:

• There was a completed consultation

under ESA § 7 for your facility (Criteria B) =>

proceed to 2–B

• There is a previously issued ESA § 10

permit for your facility (Criteria C) =>

proceed to 2–C

• Another operator previously certified

eligibility for the area where your facility is

located (Criteria E) => proceed to 2–D

=> If no, proceed to Step Three

2–B Check for Criteria ‘‘B’’ Eligibility Did

the previously completed ESA § 7

consultation consider all currently listed

species and critical habitat and address your

storm water, allowable non-storm water, and

discharge related activities?

=> If no, proceed to Step Three

2-B–1 Did the ESA § 7 consultation result

in either a ‘‘no jeopardy’’ opinion by the

Service (for formal consultations) or a

concurrence by the service that your

activities would be ‘‘unlikely to adversely

affect’’ listed species or critical habitat?

=> If no, proceed to Step Three

2–B–2 IF YOU AGREE TO IMPLEMENT

ANY MEASURES UPON WHICH THE

CONSULTATION WAS CONDITIONED,

YOU ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER CRITERIA ‘‘B’’.

Incorporate any necessary measures into your

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan,

document your endangered species

assessment, and certify eligibility under Part

1.2.3.6.3.2. Congratulations, go to Step Five!

=> If you do not agree to implement

conditions upon which the consultation was

based, proceed to Step Three

2–C Check for Criteria ‘‘C’’ Eligibility IF

YOUR ESA § 10 PERMIT CONSIDERED ALL

CURRENTLY LISTED SPECIES AND

CRITICAL HABITAT AND ADDRESSES

YOUR STORM WATER, ALLOWABLE NONSTORM WATER, AND DISCHARGE

RELATED ACTIVITIES, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE

UNDER CRITERIA ‘‘C’’. Incorporate any

necessary measures into your Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan, document your

endangered species assessment, and certify

eligibility under Part 1.2.3.6.3.3 of the

permit. Congratulations, go to Step Five!

=> If your ESA § 10 permit did not meet

these criteria, proceed to Step Three

2–D Check for Criteria ‘‘E’’ Eligibility Did

the other operator’s certification of eligibility

consider all currently listed species and

critical habitat and address your storm water,

allowable non-storm water, and discharge

related activities?

=> If no, proceed to Step Three

2–D–1 IF YOU AGREE TO IMPLEMENT

ANY MEASURES UPON WHICH THE

OTHER OPERATOR’S CERTIFICATION

WAS BASED, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER

CRITERIA ‘‘E’’. Incorporate any necessary

measures into your Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan, document your endangered

species assessment, and certify eligibility

under Part 1.2.3.6.3.5 of the Permit.

Congratulations, go to Step Five!

=> If you do not agree to implement

conditions upon which another operator’s

certification was based, proceed to Step

Three

Step Three: Are Listed Species or Critical

Habitat Likely To Be Adversely Affected by

Your Facility’s Storm Water Discharges,

Allowable Non-storm Water Discharges, or

Discharge-related Activities?

If you are unable to certify eligibility under

Criteria A, B, C, or E, you must assess

whether your storm water discharges,

allowable non-storm water discharges, and

discharge-related activities are likely to pose

jeopardy to listed species or critical habitat.

‘‘Storm water discharge-related activities’’

include:

Activities which cause, contribute to, or

result in point source storm water pollutant

discharges; and

Measures to control storm water discharges

and allowable non-storm water discharges

including the siting, construction, operation

of best management practices (BMPs) to

control, reduce or prevent water pollution.

Effects from storm water discharges,

allowable non-storm water discharges, and

discharge-related activities which could pose

jeopardy include:

Hydrological. Wastewater or storm water

discharges may cause siltation,

sedimentation or induce other changes in

receiving waters such as temperature, salinity

or pH. These effects will vary with the

amount of wastewater or storm water

discharged and the volume and condition of

the receiving water. Where a discharge

constitutes a minute portion of the total

volume of the receiving water, adverse

hydrological effects are less likely.

Habitat. Excavation, site development,

grading, and other surface disturbance

activities, including the installation or

placement of wastewater or storm water

ponds or BMPs, may adversely affect listed

species or their habitat. Wastewater or storm

water associated with facility operation may

drain or inundate listed species habitat.

Toxicity. In some cases, pollutants in

wastewater or storm water may have toxic

effects on listed species.

The scope of effects to consider will vary

with each facility. If you are having difficulty

in determining whether your facility is likely

to pose jeopardy to a listed specie or critical

habitat, then the appropriate office of the

FWS, NMFS, or Natural Heritage Center

listed in Sections II and III of this Addendum

should be contacted for assistance.

Document the results of your assessment

and make a preliminary determination on

whether or not there would likely be any

jeopardy to listed species or critical habitat.

You will need to determine that your

activities are either ‘‘unlikely to adversely

affect’’ or ‘‘may adversely affect’’. Your

determination may be based on measures that

you implement to avoid, eliminate, or

minimize adverse affects.

=> Proceed to Step Four

Step Four: Can You Meet Eligibility Criteria

‘‘D’’?

Using best judgment, can you determine

your facility’s storm water discharges,

allowable non-storm water discharges, and

discharge-related activities are unlikely to

pose jeopardy to listed species or critical

habitat?

4–A IF STEP THREE DETERMINATION

IS ‘‘UNLIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT’’,

YOU ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER CRITERIA ‘‘D’’.

Incorporate appropriate measures upon

which your eligibility was based into your

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and

certify eligibility under Part 1.2.3.6.3.4 of the

permit. Congratulations, go to Step Five.

=> If there may be adverse effects, proceed

to Step 4–B

4–B Step Three (or Step 4–A–1)

Determination is ‘‘May Adversely Affect’’

You must contact the Service(s) to discuss

your findings and measures you could

implement to avoid, eliminate, or minimize

adverse affects.

4–B–1 IF YOU AND THE SERVICE(S)

REACH AGREEMENT ON MEASURES TO

AVOID ADVERSE EFFECTS, YOU ARE

ELIGIBLE UNDER CRITERIA ‘‘D’’.

Incorporate appropriate measures upon

which your eligibility was based into your

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and

certify eligibility under Part 1.2.3.6.3.4 of the

permit. Congratulations, go to Step Five.

4–C Endangered Species Issues Cannot

be Resolved If you cannot reach agreement

with the Service(s) on measures to avoid,

eliminate, or reduce adverse effects to an

acceptable level; and if any likely adverse

effects cannot otherwise be addressed

through meeting the other criteria of Part

1.2.3.6; then you are not eligible for coverage

under the MSGP at this time and must seek

coverage under an individual permit.

Proceed to 40 CFR 122.26(c) for individual

permit application requirements.

Step Five: Submit Notice of Intent and

Document Results of the Eligibility

Determination

Once all other Part 1.2 eligibility

requirements have been met, you may submit

the Notice of Intent (NOI). Signature and

submittal of the NOI is also deemed to

constitute your certification, under penalty of

law, of your eligibility for permit coverage.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64865

You must include documentation of Part

1.2.3.6 eligibility in the pollution prevention

plan required for the facility. Documentation

required for the various eligibility criteria are

as follows:

Criteria A—A copy of the County-Species

List pages with the county(ies) where your

facility and discharges are located and a

statement on how you determined that no

listed species or critical habitat was in

proximity to your discharge.

Criteria B—A copy of the Service(s)’s

Biological Opinion or concurrence on a

finding of ‘‘unlikely to adversely effect’’

regarding the ESA § 7 consultation.

Criteria C—A copy of the Service(s)’s letter

transmitting the ESA § 10 authorization.

Criteria D—Documentation on how you

determined adverse effects on listed

species and critical habitat were unlikely.

Criteria E—A copy of the documents

originally used by the other operator of

your facility (or area including your

facility) to satisfy the documentation

requirement of Criteria A, B, C or D.

E. Duty To Implement Terms and Conditions

Upon Which Eligibility Was Determined

You must comply with any terms and

conditions imposed under the eligibility

requirements of Part 1.2.3.6.3 to ensure that

your storm water discharges, allowable nonstorm water discharges, and discharge-related

activities do not pose jeopardy to listed

species and/or critical habitat. You must

incorporate such terms and conditions in

your facility’s Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan as required by the permit. If

the eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.6

cannot be met, then you may not receive

coverage under this permit. You should then

consider applying to the permitting authority

for an individual permit.

II. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Offices

National Website For Endangered Species

Information. Endangered Species Home page:

http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/endspp.html

Regional, State, Field and Project Offices

USFWS, Region One—Regional Office

Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological

Services, 911 NE 11 Avenue, Portland, OR

97232–4181, (503) 231–6121

State, Field, and Project Offices (Region One)

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, P.O. Box 50088, 300 Ala Moana

Blvd., Rm 3108, Honolulu, HI 96850

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Upper Columbia R. Basin F&W

Office, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Ste

2, Spokane, WA 99306

State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office,

2600 S.E 98th Avenue Suite 100, Portland,

OR 97266

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Snake River Basin F&W Office,

1387 South Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise,

Idaho 83709

State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Nevada State Office, 4600 Kietzke

Lane, Building C, Rm. 125, Reno, NV

89502–5093

State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Western Washington F&W Office,

510 Desmond Dr., Suite 102, Lacey, WA

98503–1273

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Klamath Falls F&W Office, 6600

Washburn Way, Klamath Falls, OR 97603

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Klamath River F&W Office, 1215

South Main, Suite 212, Yreka, CA 96097–

1006

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office,

2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA

92008

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ventura Field Office, 2493 Portola

Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Coastal California Fish and

Wildlife Office, 1125 16th St., Rm. 209,

Arcata, CA 95521–5582

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Northern Central Valley F&W

Office, 10959 Tyler Road, Red Bluff, CA

96080

State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, California State Office, 3310 El

Camino Avenue, Suite 120, Sacramento,

CA 95821–6340

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office,

3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 120,

Sacramento, CA 95821–6340

USFWS Region Two—Regional Office

Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological

Services, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM

87103

State, Field, and Project Offices (Region Two)

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Corpus Christi Field Office, 6300

Ocean Dr., Campus Box 338, Corpus

Christi, TX 78412

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Arlington Field Office, 711

Stadium Dr., East, Suite 252, Arlington, TX

76011

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Clear Lake Field Office, 17629 El

Camino Real, Suite 211, Houston, TX

77058

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Oklahoma Field Office, 222 S.

Houston, Suite a, Tulsa, OK 74127

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, New Mexico Field Office, 2105

Osuna, NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Austin Ecological Serv. Field

Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200,

Austin, TX 78758

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Arizona State Office, 2321 W.

Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ

85021–4951

USFWS Region Three—Regional Office

Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological

Services, BHW Federal Bldg, 1 Federal

Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111–4056

State, Field, and Project Offices (Region

Three)

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Chicago, Illinois Field Office, 1000

Hart Rd., Suite 180, Barrington, IL 60010

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, East Lansing Field Office, 2651

Coolidge Road, East Lansing, MI 48823

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Reynoldsburg Field Office, 6950

Americana Parkway, Suite H,

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068–4132

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Bloomington Field Office, 620

South Walker Street, Bloomington, IN

47403–2121

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Twin Cities E.S. Field Office, 4101

East 80th Street, Bloomington, MN 55425–

1665

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Columbia Field Office, 608 East

Cherry Street, Room 200, Columbia, MO

65201–7712

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Green Bay Field Office, 1015

Challenger Court, Green Bay, WI 54311–

8331

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Rock Island Field Office, 4469

48th Avenue Court, Rock Island, IL 61201

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Marion Suboffice, Route 3, Box

328, Marion, IL 62959–4565

USFWS Region Four—Regional Office

Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD—

Ecological Services, 1875 Century Blvd.,

Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345

State, Field, and Project Offices (Region Four)

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Panama City Field Office, 1612

June Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405–3721

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, South Florida Ecosystem Field

Office, 1360 U.S. Hwy 1, #5; P.O. Box

2676, Vero Beach, FL 32961–2676

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Caribbean Field Office, P.O. Box

491, Boqueron, PR 00622

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Puerto Rican Parrot Field Office,

P.O. Box 1600, Rio Grande, PR 00745

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Brunswick Field Office, 4270

Norwich Street, Brunswick, GA 31520–

2523

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Jacksonville Field Office, 6620

Southpoint Drive S., Suite 310,

Jacksonville, FL 32216–0912

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Charleston Field Office, 217 Ft.

Johnson Road, P.O. Box 12559, Charleston,

SC 29422–2559

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Clemson F.O., Dept. of Forest

Resources, 261 Lehotsky Hall, Box 341003,

Clemson, SC 29634–1003

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Raleigh Field Office, P.O. Box

33726, Raleigh, NC 27636–3726

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Cookeville Field Office, 446 Neal

Street, Cookeville, TN 38501

64866 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Asheville Field Office, 160

Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Daphne Field Office, P.O. Drawer

1190, Daphne, AL 36526

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Vicksburg Field Office, 2524 S.

Frontage Road, Suite B, Vicksburg, MS

39180–5269

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Svc.,

Lafayette Field Office, Brandywine II, Suite

102, 825 Kaliste Saloom Road, Lafayette,

LA 70508

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Jackson Field Office, 6578

Dogwood View Pkwy Suite A, Jackson, MS

39213

Region Five—Regional Office

Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological

Services, 300 Westgate Center Drive,

Hadley, MA 01035–9589

State, Field and Project Offices (Region Five)

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Delaware Bay Estuary Project,

2610 Whitehall Neck Road, Smyrna, DE

19977

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Southern New England/NYBCE

Program, Shoreline Plaza, Route 1A, P.O.

Box 307, Charlestown, RI 02813

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Gulf of Maine Project, 4 R Fundy

Road, Falmouth, ME 04105

Project Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Chesapeake Bay Field, Office, 177

Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis,

Maryland 21401

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Virginia Field Office, P.O. Box 99,

6669 Short Lane, Gloucester, VA 23061

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Southwestern Virginia Field

Office, P.O. Box 2345, Abingdon, VA

24212

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, New England Field Office, 22

Bridge St., Unit #1, Concord, New

Hampshire 03301–4986

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Maine Field Office, 1033 South

Main St., Old Town, Maine 04468

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Rhode Island Field Office,

Shoreline Plaza, Route 1A; P.O. Box 307,

Charlestown, Rhode Island 02813

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Vermont Field Office, 11 Lincoln

Street, Winston Prouty Federal Building,

Essex Junction, VT 05452

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, New Jersey Field Office, 927 North

Main St., Bldg. D1, Pleasantville, New

Jersey 08232

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, New York Field Office, 3817 Luker

Road, Cortland, New York 13045

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Long Island Field Office, P.O. Box

608, Islip, New York 11751–0608

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Pennsylvania Field Office, 315 S.

Allen St., Suite 322, State College,

Pennsylvania 16801

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Eastern Pennsylvania Field Office,

11 Hap Arnold Boulevard, Box H,

Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania 18466–0080

Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, West Virginia Field Office, Route

250, S.—Elkins Shopping Plaza, Elkins,

West Virginia 26241

Region Six—Regional Office

Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD-Ecological

Services, P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Denver, CO

80225

State, Field, and Project Offices (Region Six)

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Montana Field Office, 100 N. Park,

Suite 320, Helena, MT 59601

Sub-Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Billings Sub-Office, 2900 4th Ave.

North-Rm 301, Billings, MT 59101

Sub-Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Kalispell Sub-Office, 780 Creston

Hatchery Road, Kalispell, MT 59901

Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Forestry Sciences

Lab, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

59812

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, North Dakota Field Office, 1500

Capitol Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Nebraska Field Office, 203 W. 2nd

Street; Federal Bldg., 2nd Floor, Grand

Island, NE 68801

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Kansas Field Office, 315 Houston,

Suite E, Manhattan, KS 66502

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, South Dakota Field Office, 420 S.

Garfield Ave., Suite 400, Pierre, SD 57501–

5408

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Salt Lake City Field Office,

Lincoln Plaza, 145 East 1300 South—Suite

404, Salt Lake City, UT 84115

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Colorado Field Office, 730 Simms,

Suite 290, Golden, CO 80401–4798

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Western Colorado Field Office,

764 Horizon Drive South, Annex A, Grand

Junction, CO 81506–3946

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Wyoming Field Office, 4000

Morrie Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001

E.S. Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, National

Wildlife Area, Building 111, Commerce

City, CO 80022–1748

Colorado River Recovery Coordinator, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486,

DFC, Denver, CO 80225

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laramie

Black Footed Ferret Office, 410 Grand

Ave., Suite 315, Laramie, WY 80270

Region Seven—Regional Office

Division Chief, Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ARD Ecological

Services, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage,

AK 99503

State, Field, and Project Offices (Region

Seven)

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services, 605 West 4th

Avenue, Room G–62, Anchorage, AK

99501

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services, 101 12th

Avenue, Box 19 (Room 232), Fairbanks, AK

99701

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ketchikan Sub-office, 103 Main

Street, P.O. Box 3193, Ketchikan, AK

99901

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services, 300 Vintage

Blvd., Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801

Region Eight—Has not yet been created out

of the other FWS Regions at the time of this

posting.

Region Nine

Janet Ady—Outreach, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, National Conservation Training

Center, Route 3, Box 49, Kearneysville, WV

25430

Dan Benfield—Training, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, National Conservation

Training Center, Route 3, Box 49,

Kearneysville, WV 25430

III. National Marine Fisheries Service

Offices

The National Marine Fisheries Service is

developing a database to provide county and

territorial water (up to three miles offshore)

information on the presence of endangered

and threatened species and critical habitat.

The database should be found at the ‘‘Office

of Protected Resources’’ site on the NMFS

Homepage at http://www.nmfs.gov.

Regional and Field Offices—Northeast

Region

Protected Resources Program, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast

Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester,

Massachusetts 01930

Milford Field Office, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 212 Rogers Avenue,

Milford, Connecticut 06460

Oxford Field Office, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 904 So. Morris Street,

Oxford, Maryland 21654

Sandy Hook Field Office, James J. Howard

Marine Sciences Laboratory, National

Marine Fisheries Service, 74 Magruder

Road, Highlands, New Jersey 07732

Protected Species Branch, National Marine

Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods

Hole, Massachusetts 02543

Southeast Region

Protective Species Management Branch,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Southeast Region, 9721 Executive Center

Drive, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702–2432

Northwest Region

Protected Species Division, National Marine

Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, 525

NE Oregon, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon

97232–2737

Boise Field Office, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 1387 S. Vinnel Way, Suite 377,

Boise, Idaho 83709

Olympia Field Office, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 510 Desmond Drive, SE,

Suite 103, Lacey, Washington 98503

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64867

Roseburg Field Office, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 2900 Stewart Parkway

NW, Roseburg, Oregon 97470

Rufus Field Office, National Marine Fisheries

Service, P.O. Box 67, 704 ‘‘E’’ 1st, Rufus,

Oregon 97050

Southwest Region

Protected Species Management Division,

Southwest Region, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 501 West Ocean Blvd.,

Suite 4200, Long Beach, California 90802–

4213

Arcata Field Office, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1125 16th Street, Room

209, Arcata, California 95521

Eureka Field Office, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1330 Bayshore Way,

Eureka, California 95501

Pacific Islands Area Field Office, National

Marine Fisheries Service, 2570 Dole Street,

Room 106, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822–2396

Santa Rosa Field Office, Protected Resources

Program, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325,

Santa Rosa, California 95404

Alaska Region

Protected Resources Management, Division,

Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 709 West 9th Street, Federal

Building 461, P.O. Box 21767, Juneau,

Alaska 99802

Anchorage Office, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box

10, Anchorage, Alaska 99513–7577

IV. Natural Heritage Centers

The Natural Heritage Network comprises

85 biodiversity data centers throughout the

Western Hemisphere. These centers collect,

organize, and share data relating to

endangered and threatened species and

habitat. The network was developed to

inform land-use decisions for developers,

corporations, conservationists, and

government agencies and is also consulted

for research and educational purposes. The

centers maintain a Natural Heritage Network

Control Server Website (http://

www.heritage.tnc.org) which provides

website and other access to a large number

of specific biodiversity centers. Some of these

centers are listed below:

Alabama Natural Heritage Program,

Huntingdon College, Massey Hall, 1500

East Fairview Avenue, Montgomery, AL

36106–2148, (334) 834–4519 Fax: (334)

834–5439, Internet: alnhp@wsnet.com

Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University

of Alaska Anchorage, 707 A Street,

Anchorage, AK 99501, 907/257–2702 Fax:

907/258–9139, Program Director: David

Duffy, 257–2707, Internet:

afdcd1@orion.alaska.edu

Arizona Heritage Data Management System,

Arizona Game & Fish Department, WM–H,

2221 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ

85023, 602/789–3612 Fax: 602/789–3928,

Internet: hdms@gf.state.az.us Internet:

hdms1@gf.state.az.us

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Suite

1500, Tower Building, 323 Center Street,

Little Rock, AR 72201, 501/324–9150 Fax:

501/324–9618, Director: Harold K.

Grimmett, –9614

California Natural Heritage Division,

Department of Fish & Game, 1220 S Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814, 916/322–2493 Fax:

916/324–0475

Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado

State University, 254 General Services

Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523, 970/491–

1309 Fax: 970/491–3349

Connecticut Natural Diversity Database,

Natural Resources Center, Department of

Environmental Protection, 79 Elm Street,

Store Level, Hartford, CT 06106–5127, 860/

424–3540 Fax: 860/424–4058

Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Division

of Fish & Wildlife, Department of Natural

Resources & Environmental Control, 4876

Hay Point Landing Road Smyrna, DE

19977, 302/653–2880 Fax: 302/653–3431

District of Columbia Natural Heritage

Program, 13025 Riley’s Lock Road,

Poolesville, MD 20837, 301/427–1302 Fax:

301/427–1355

Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 1018

Thomasville Road, Suite 200–C,

Tallahassee, FL 32303, 904/224–8207 Fax:

904/681–9364

Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Eglin Air

Force Base, P.O. Box 1150, Niceville, FL

32588, 904/883–6451 Fax: 904/682–8381

Georgia Natural Heritage Program, Wildlife

Resources Division, Georgia Department of

Natural Resources, 2117 U.S. Highway 278

S.E., Social Circle, GA 30279, 706/557–

3032 or 770/918–6411, Fax: 706/557–3033

or 706/557–3040 Internet:

natural_heritage@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

Hawaii Natural Heritage Program, The Nature

Conservancy of Hawaii, 1116 Smith Street,

Suite 201, Honolulu, HI 96817, 808/537–

4508 Fax: 808/545–2019

Idaho Conservation Data Center, Department

of Fish & Game, 600 South Walnut Street,

Box 25, Boise, ID 83707–0025, 208/334–

3402 Fax: 208/334–2114

Illinois Natural Heritage Division,

Department of Natural Resources, Division

of Natural Heritage, 524 South Second

Street, Springfield, IL 62701–1787, 217/

785–8774 Fax: 217/785–8277

Illinois Nature Preserves Commission,

Director: Carolyn Grosboll, Deputy Dir/

Steward: Randy Heidorn, Deputy Dir/

Protect: Don McFall, Office Specialist:

Karen Tish, 217/785–8774 Fax: 217/785–

8277

Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center,

Division of Nature Preserves, Department

of Natural Resources, 402 West

Washington Street, Room W267,

Indianapolis, IN 46204, 317/232–4052 Fax:

317/233–0133

Iowa Natural Areas Inventory, Department of

Natural Resources, Wallace State Office

Building, Des Moines, IA 50319–0034, Fax:

515/281–6794, Coordinator/Zoologist:

Daryl Howell, 515/281–8524

Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory, Kansas

Biological Survey, 2041 Constant Avenue,

Lawrence, KS 66047–2906, 913/864–3453

Fax: 913/864–5093

Kentucky Natural Heritage Program,

Kentucky State Nature Preserves

Commission, 801 Schenkel Lane,

Frankfort, KY 40601, 502/573–2886 Fax:

502/573–2355

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program,

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, P.O.

Box 98000, Baton Rouge, LA 70898–9000,

504/765–2821 Fax: 504/765–2607

Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of

Conservation (FedEx/UPS: 159 Hospital

Street), 93 State House Station, Augusta,

ME 04333–0093, 207/287–8044 Fax: 207/

287–8040, Internet: mnap@state.me.us Web

site: http://www.state.me.us/doc/mnap/

home.htm

Maryland Heritage & Biodiversity

Conservation Programs, Department of

Natural Resources, Tawes State Office

Building, E–1, Annapolis, MD 21401, 410/

260–8540 Fax: 410/260–8595, Web site:

http://www.heritage.tnc.org/nhp/us/md/

Massachusetts Natural Heritage &

Endangered Species Program, Division of

Fisheries & Wildlife, Route 135,

Westborough, MA 01581 508/792–7270

ext. 200 Fax: 508/792–7275

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Mason

Building, 5th floor (FedEx/UPS: 530 W

Allegan, 48933), Box 30444, Lansing, MI

48909–7944, 517/373–1552 Fax: 517/373–

6705, Director: Leni Wilsmann, 373–7565,

Internet: wilsmanl@wildlife.dnr.state.mi.us

Minnesota Natural Heritage & Nongame

Research, Department of Natural

Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Box 7, St.

Paul, MN 55155, 612/297–4964 Fax: 612/

297–4961

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program,

Museum of Natural Science, 111 North

Jefferson Street, Jackson, MS 39201–2897,

601/354–7303 Fax: 601/354–7227

Missouri Natural Heritage Database, Missouri

Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 180

(FedEx: 2901 West Truman Blvd), Jefferson

City, MO 65102–0180, 573/751–4115 Fax:

573/526–5582

Montana Natural Heritage Program, State

Library Building, 1515 E. 6th Avenue,

Helena, MT 59620, 406/444–3009 Fax:

406/444–0581, Internet:

mtnhp@nris.msl.mt.gov, Homepage/World

Wide Web: http://nris.msl.mt.gov/mtnhp/

nhp-dir.html

Navajo Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box

1480, Window Rock, Navajo Nation, AZ

86515, (520) 871–7603, (520) 871–7069

(FAX)

Nebraska Natural Heritage Program, Game

and Parks Commission, 2200 North 33rd

Street, P.O. Box 30370, Lincoln, NE 68503,

402/471–5421 Fax: 402/471–5528

Nevada Natural Heritage Program,

Department of Conservation & Natural

Resources, 1550 E. College Parkway, Suite

145, Carson City, NV 89706–7921, 702/

687–4245 Fax: 702/885–0868

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory,

Department of Resources & Economic

Development, 172 Pembroke Street, P.O.

Box 1856, Concord, NH 03302, 603/271–

3623 Fax: 603/271–2629

New York Natural Heritage Program,

Department of Environmental

Conservation, 700 Troy-Schenectady Road,

Latham, NY 12110–2400, 518/783–3932

Fax: 518/783–3916, Computer: 518/783–

3946

North Carolina Heritage Program, NC

Department of Environment, Health &

Natural Resources, Division of Parks &

Recreation, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC

27611–7687, 919–733–4181 Fax: 919/715–

3085

North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory,

North Dakota Parks & Recreation

64868 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Department, 1835 Bismarck Expressway,

Bismarck, ND 58504, 701/328–5357 Fax:

701/328–5363

Ohio Natural Heritage Data Base, Division of

Natural Areas & Preserves, Department of

Natural Resources, 1889 Fountain Square,

Building F–1, Columbus, OH 43224, 614/

265–6453 Fax: 614/267–3096

Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory,

Oklahoma Biological Survey, 111 East

Chesapeake Street, University of

Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019–0575, 405/

325–1985 Fax: 405/325–7702, Web site:

http://obssun02.uoknor.edu/biosurvey/

onhi/home.html

Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Oregon

Field Office, 821 SE 14th Avenue,

Portland, OR 97214 503/731–3070; 230–

1221 Fax: 503/230–9639

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory

(East, West, Central)

* Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory—

East, The Nature Conservancy, 34 Airport

Drive, Middletown, PA 17057, 717/948–

3962 Fax: 717/948–3957

* Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory—

West, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy,

Natural Areas Program, 316 Fourth

Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, 412/288–

2777 Fax: 412/281–1792

* Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory—

Central, Bureau of Forestry, P.O. Box 8552,

Harrisburg, PA 17105–8552, 717/783–0388

Fax: 717/783–5109

Puerto Rico Natural Heritage Program,

Division de Patrimonio Natural, Area de

Planificacion Integral, Departamento de

Recursos Naturales y Ambientales de

Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 5887, Puerta de

Tierra, Puerto Rico 00906, Tel: 787–722–

1726, Fax: 787–725–9526

Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program,

Department of Environmental

Management, Division of Planning &

Development, 83 Park Street, Providence,

RI 02903, 401/277–2776, x4308 Fax: 401/

277–2069

South Carolina Heritage Trust, SC

Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box

167, Columbia, SC 29202, 803/734–3893

Fax: 803/734–6310 (Call first)

South Dakota Natural Heritage Data Base, SD

Department of Game, Fish & Parks Wildlife

Division, 523 E. Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD

57501–3182, 605/773–4227 Fax: 605/773–

6245

Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage,

Department of Environment &

Conservation, 401 Church Street, Life and

Casualty Tower, 8th Floor, Nashville, TN

37243–0447, 615/532–0431 Fax: 615/532–

0614

Texas Biological and Conservation Data

System, 3000 South IH–35, Suite 100,

Austin, TX 78704, 512/912–7011 Fax: 512/

912–7058

U.S. Virgin Islands Conservation Data Center,

Eastern Caribbean Center, University of the

Virgin Islands, No. 2 John Brewers Bay, St.

Thomas, VI 00802, (809) 693–1030 [Voice]

(809) 693–1025, [Fax], Home Page:

cdc.uvi.edu, E-Mail:dbarry@uvi.edu

Utah Natural Heritage Program, Division of

Wildlife Resources, 1596 West North

Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, 801/

538–4761 Fax: 801/538–4709

Vermont Nongame & Natural Heritage

Program, Vermont Fish & Wildlife

Department, 103 S. Main Street, 10 South,

Waterbury, VT 05671–0501, 802/241–3700

Fax: 802/241–3295

Virginia Division of Natural Heritage,

Department of Conservation & Recreation,

Main Street Station, 1500 E. Main Street,

Suite 312, Richmond, VA 23219, 804/786–

7951 Fax: 804/371–2674

Washington Natural Heritage Program,

Department of Natural Resources, (FedEx:

1111 Washington Street, SE), P.O. Box

47016, Olympia, WA 98504–7016, 360/

902–1340 Fax: 360/902–1783

West Virginia Natural Heritage Program,

Department of Natural Resources,

Operations Center, Ward Road, P.O. Box

67, Elkins, WV 26241, 304/637–0245 Fax:

304/637–0250

Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program,

Endangered Resources, Department of

Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster Street,

Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, 608/266–

7012 Fax: 608/266–2925

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, 1604

Grand Avenue, Suite 2, Laramie, WY

82070, 307/745–5026 Fax: 307/745–5026

(Call first), Internet: wyndd@lariat.or

Addendum B—Historic Properties

Guidance

Applicants must determine whether their

facility’s storm water discharges, allowable

non-storm water discharges, or construction

of best management practices (BMPs) to

control such discharges, has potential to

affect a property that is either listed or

eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places.

For existing dischargers who do not need

to construct BMPs for permit coverage, a

simple visual inspection may be sufficient to

determine whether historic properties are

affected. However, for facilities which are

new industrial storm water dischargers and

for existing facilities which are planning to

construct BMPs for permit eligibility,

applicants should conduct further inquiry to

determine whether historic properties may be

affected by the storm water discharge or

BMPs to control the discharge. In such

instances, applicants should first determine

whether there are any historic properties or

places listed on the National Register or if

any are eligible for listing on the register (e.g.,

they are ‘‘eligible for listing’’).

Due to the large number of entities seeking

coverage under this permit and the limited

number of personnel available to State and

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers

nationwide to respond to inquiries

concerning the location of historic properties,

EPA suggests that applicants first access the

‘‘National Register of Historic Places’’

information listed on the National Park

Service’s web page (see Part I of this

addendum). Addresses for State Historic

Preservation Officers and Tribal Historic

Preservation Officers are listed in Parts II and

III of this addendum, respectively. In

instances where a Tribe does not have a

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer,

applicants should contact the appropriate

Tribal government office when responding to

this permit eligibility condition. Applicants

may also contact city, county or other local

historical societies for assistance, especially

when determining if a place or property is

eligible for listing on the register.

The following three scenarios describe how

applicants can meet the permit eligibility

criteria for protection of historic properties

under this permit:

(1) If historic properties are not identified

in the path of a facility’s storm water and

allowable non-storm water discharges or

where construction activities are planned to

install BMPs to control such discharges (e.g.,

diversion channels or retention ponds), then

the applicant has met the permit eligibility

criteria under Part 1.2.3.7.1.

(2) If historic properties are identified but

it is determined that they will not be affected

by the discharges or construction of BMPs to

control the discharge, the applicant has met

the permit eligibility criteria under Part

1.2.3.7.1.

(3) If historic properties are identified in

the path of a facility’s storm water and

allowable non-storm water discharges or

where construction activities are planned to

install BMPs to control such discharges, and

it is determined that there is the potential to

adversely affect the property, the applicant

can still meet the permit eligibility criteria

under Part 1.2.3.7.2 if he/she obtains and

complies with a written agreement with the

appropriate State or Tribal Historic

Preservation Officer which outlines measures

the applicant will follow to mitigate or

prevent those adverse effects. The contents of

such a written agreement must be included

in the facility’s Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan. The NOI form is being

amended to include which option was

selected to demonstrate compliance with

NHPA provisions. EPA will notify applicants

when the new NOI form takes effect.

In situations where an agreement cannot be

reached between an applicant and the State

or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer,

applicants should contact the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation listed in

Part IV of this addendum for assistance.

The term ‘‘adverse effects’’ includes but is

not limited to damage, deterioration,

alteration or destruction of the historic

property or place. EPA encourages applicants

to contact the appropriate State or Tribal

Historic Preservation Officer as soon as

possible in the event of a potential adverse

effect to a historic property.

Applicants are reminded that they must

comply with applicable State, Tribal and

local laws concerning the protection of

historic properties and places.

I. Internet Information on the National

Register of Historic Places

An electronic listing of the ‘‘National

Register of Historic Places,’’ as maintained by

the National Park Service on its National

Register Information System (NRIS), can be

accessed on the Internet at ‘‘http://

www.nr.nps.gov/nrishome.htm’’. Remember

to use small case letters when accessing

Internet addresses.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64869

II. State Historic Preservation Officers

(SHPO)

SHPO and Deputy SHPO List:

Alabama

Dr. Lee Warner, SHPO, Alabama Historical

Commission, 468 South Perry Street,

Montgomery, AL 36130–0900, 334–242–

3184 FAX: 334–240–3477, E-Mail:

lwarner@mail.preserveala.org/

Deputy: Ms. Elizabeth Ann Brown, E-Mail:

ebrown@mail.preserveala.

orgwww.preserveala.org

Alaska

Ms. Judith Bittner, SHPO, Alaska Department

of Natural Resources, Office of History &

Archeology, 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite

1310, Anchorage, AK 99501–3565, 907–

269–8721 FAX: 907–269–8908, E-Mail:

judyb@dnr.state.ak.us

Deputy: Joan Antonson, www.dnr.state.ak.us/

parks/oha_web

American Samoa

Mr. John Enright, HPO, Executive Offices of

the Governor, American Samoa Historic

Preservation Office, American Samoa

Government, Pago Pago, American Samoa

96799, 011–684–633–2384 FAX: 684–633–

2367, E-Mail: enright@samoatelco.com

Deputy: Mr. David J. Herdrich, E-Mail:

herdrich@samoatelco.com

Arizona

Mr. James W. Garrison, SHPO, Arizona State

Parks, 1300 West Washington, Phoenix, AZ

85007, 602–542–4174 FAX: 602–542–4180,

E-Mail: jgarrison@pr.state.az.us

Deputy: Ms. Carol Griffith, E-Mail:

cgriffith@pr.state.az.uswww.pr.state.az.us

Arkansas

Ms. Cathryn B. Slater, SHPO, Arkansas

Historic Preservation Program, 323 Center

Street, Suite 1500, Little Rock, AR 72201,

501–324–9880 FAX: 501–324–9184, EMail: cathy@dah.state.ar.us

Deputy: Mr. Ken Grunewald, 501–324–9356,

E-Mail: keng@dah.state.ar.us

California

Daniel Abeyta, Acting SHPO, Ofc of Hist

Pres, Dept Parks & Recreation, P.O. Box

942896, Sacramento CA 94296–0001, 916–

653–6624 FAX: 916–653–9824, E-Mail:

dabey@ohp.parks.ca.gov

Deputy: http://cal-parks.ca.gov

Colorado

Ms. Georgianna Contiguglia, SHPO, Colorado

Historical Society, 1300 Broadway, Denver,

CO 80203, 303–866–3395 FAX: 303–866–

4464,

Deputy: Mr. Mark Wolfe, 303–866–2776,

FAX: 303–866–2041, E-Mail:

mark.wolfe@chs.state.co.us

Deputy: Dr. Susan M. Collins, 303–866–2736,

E-Mail: susan.collins@chs.state.co.us

Tech Ser: Ms. Kaaren Hardy, 303–866–3398,

E-Mail: kaaren.hardy@chs.state.co.uswww.

coloradohistory-oahp.org

Connecticut

Mr. John W. Shannahan, SHPO, Connecticut

Historical Commission, 59 So. Prospect

Street, Hartford, CT 06106, 860–566–3005

FAX: 860–566–5078, E-Mail:

cthist@neca.com

Deputy: Dr. Dawn Maddox, Pres Programs

Sup

Delaware

Mr. Daniel Griffith, SHPO, Division of

Historical and Cultural Affairs, P.O. Box

1401, Dover, DE 19903, 302–739–5313

FAX: 302–739–6711, E-Mail:

dgriffith@state.de.us

Deputy: Ms. Joan Larrivee, Delaware State

Hist Preservation Office, 15 The Green,

Dover, DE 19901, 302–739–5685 FAX:

302–739–5660, E-Mail:

jlarrivee@state.de.us

District of Columbia

Mr. Gregory McCarthy, SHPO, Historic

Preservation Division, Suite 305, 941 N.

Capitol Street, NE., Room 2500,

Washington, DC 20002, 202–442–4570

FAX: 202–442–4860, www.dcra.org

Deputy: Mr. Stephen J. Raiche

Florida

Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews, SHPO, Director,

Div of Historical Resources, Dept of State,

R. A. Gray Building, 4th Floor, 500 S.

Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399–0250,

850–488–1480 FAX 850–488–3353, E-Mail:

jmatthews@mail.dos.state.fl.us 800–847–

7278 www.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/

contents.html

Georgia

Mr. Lonice C. Barrett, SHPO, Historic

Preservation Division/DNR, 156 Trinity

Avenue, SW, Suite 101, Atlanta, GA

30303–3600, 404–656–2840 FAX 404–651–

8739

Deputy: Dr. W. Ray Luce, Director, E-Mail:

ray_luce@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

Deputy: Ms. Carole Griffith, E-Mail:

carole_griffith@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

Deputy: Mr. Richard Cloues, E-Mail:

richard_cloues@

mail.dnr.state.ga.uswww.dnr. state.ga.us/

dnr/histpres/

Guam

Lynda B. Aguon, SHPO, Guam Historic

Preservation Office, Department of Parks &

Recreation, PO Box 2950 Building 13–8

Tiyan, Hagatna, Guam 96932, 1–671–475–

6290 FAX: 1–671–477–2822, E-Mail:

laguon@mail.gov.gu http://

www.admin.gov.gu/dpr/hrdhome.html

Hawaii

Mr. Timothy Johns, SHPO, Department of

Land & Natural Resources, P.O. Box 621,

Honolulu, HI 96809, 808–587–0401

Deputy: Ms. Janet Kawelo,

Deputy: Dr. Don Hibbard, State Historic

Preservation Division, Kakuhihewa

Building, Suite 555, 601 Kamokila

Boulevard, Kapolei, HI 96707, 808–692–

8015 FAX: 808–692–8020, E-Mail:

dlnr@pixi.comwww.hawaii.gov/dlnr

Idaho

Steve Guerber, SHPO, Idaho State Historical

Society, 1109 Main Street, Suite 250, Boise,

ID 83702–5642, 208–334–2682

Deputy: Suzi Neitzel, 208–334–3847 FAX:

208–334–2775, E-Mail:

sneitzel@ishs.state.id.us

Deputy: Ken Reid, 208–334–3861

Illinois

Mr. William L. Wheeler, SHPO, Associate

Director, Illinois Historic Preservation

Agency, 1 Old State Capitol Plaza,

Springfield, IL 62701–1512, 217–785–1153

FAX: 217–524–7525

Deputy: Mr. Theodore Hild, Chief of Staff, EMail: thild@hpa084r1.state.il.us,

Deputy: Ms. Anne Haaker

Indiana

Mr. Larry D. Macklin, SHPO, Director,

Department of Natural Resources, 402 West

Washington Street, Indiana Govt. Center

South, Room W256, Indianapolis, IN

46204, E-Mail: dhpa@dnr.state.in.us

Deputy: Jon C. Smith, 317–232–1646 FAX:

317–232–0693, E-Mail:

jsmith@dnr.state.in.us

Iowa

Mr. Tom Morain, SHPO, State Historical

Society of Iowa, Capitol Complex, East 6th

and Locust St., Des Moines, IA 50319, 515–

281–5419 FAX: 515–242–6498, E-Mail:

shpo_iowa@nps.gov

Ms. Patricia Ohlerking, DSHPO, 515–281–

8824 FAX: 515–282–0502,

pohlerk@max.state.is.us

Kansas

Dr. Ramon S. Powers, SHPO, Executive

Director, Kansas State Historical Society,

6425 Southwest 6th Avenue, Topeka, KS

66615–1099, 785–272–8681 x205 FAX:

785–272–8682, E-Mail:

rpowers@hspo.wpo.state.ks.us

Deputy: Mr. Richard D. Pankratz, Director,

Historic Pres Dept 785–272–8681 x217

Deputy: Dr. Cathy Ambler, 785–272–8681

x215 E-Mail: cambler@kshs.org

Kentucky

Mr. David L. Morgan, SHPO, Executive

Director, Kentucky Heritage Council, 300

Washington Street, Frankfort, KY 40601,

502–564–7005 FAX: 502–564–5820, EMail: dmorgan@mail.state.ky.us

Louisiana

Ms. Gerri Hobdy, SHPO, Dept of Culture,

Recreation & Tourism, P.O. Box 44247,

Baton Rouge, LA 70804, 225–342–8200

FAX 225–342–8173

Deputy: Mr. Robert Collins 225–342–8200, EMail: rcollins@crt.state.la.us

Deputy: Mr. Jonathan Fricker 225–342–8160,

E-Mail: jfricker@crt.state.la.us

www.crt.state.la.us

Maine

Mr. Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., SHPO, Maine

Historic Preservation Commission, 55

Capitol Street, Station 65, Augusta, ME

04333, 207–287–2132 FAX 207–287–2335,

E-Mail: earle.shettleworth@state.me.us

Deputy: Dr. Robert L. Bradley

janus.state.me.us/mhpc/

Marshall Islands, Republic of the

Mr. Fred deBrum, HPO, Secretary of Interior

and Outer Islands Affairs, P.O. Box 1454,

Majuro Atoll, Republic of the Marshall

Islands 96960, 011–692–625–4642, FAX:

011–692–625–5353

Deputy: Clary Makroro, E-Mail:

rmihpo@ntamar.com

64870 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Maryland

Mr. J. Rodney Little, SHPO, Maryland

Historical Trust, 100 Community Place,

Third Floor, Crownsville, MD 21032–2023,

410–514–7600 FAX 410–514–7678, E-Mail:

mdshpo@ari.net

Deputy: Mr. William J. Pencek, Jr., http://

www.ari.net/mdshpo

Massachusetts

Ms. Judith McDonough, SHPO,

Massachusetts Historical Commission, 220

Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125,

617–727–8470 FAX: 617–727–5128, TTD:

1–800–392–6090, E-Mail:

Judy.McDonough@sec.state.ma.us

Deputy: Ms. Brona Simon, Dir Technical

Servs E-Mail: Brona.Simon@

sec.state.ma.uswww. state.ma.us/sec/mhc

Michigan

Brian D. Conway, SHPO, State Historic

Preservation Office, Michigan Historical

Center, 717 West Allegan Street, Lansing,

MI 48918, 517–373–1630 FAX 517–335–

0348, E-Mail:

conwaybd@sosmail.state.mi.us http://

www.sos.state.mi.us/history/preserve/

preserve.html

Micronesia, Federated States Of

Mr. Rufino Mauricio, FSM HPO, Office of

Administrative Services, Div of Archives

and Historic Preservation, FSM National

Government, P.O. Box PS 35, Palikir,

Pohnpei, FM 96941, 011–691–320–2343

FAX: 691–320–5634, E-mail:

fsmhpo@mail.fm

FSM includes four States, whose HPOs are

listed below: Mr. John Tharngan, HPO, Yap

Historic Preservation Office, Office of the

Governor, PO Box 714, Colonia, Yap, FM

96943, 011–691–350–4226 FAX: 691–350–

3898, E-Mail: hpoyapfsm@mail.fm

HPO, Div Land mgmt & Natural Resources,

Department of Commerce & Industry, PO

Box 280, Moen, Chuuk (Truk), FM 96942,

011–691–330–2552/2761 FAX: 691–330–

4906, Mr. David W. Panuelo, HPO, Dir,

Dept of Land, Pohnpei State Government,

P.O. Box 1149, Kolonia, Pohnpei, FM

96941, 011–691–320–2611 FAX: 011–691–

320–5599, E-Mail: nahnsehleng@mail.fm

Mr. Berlin Sigrah, Kosrae HPO, Div of Land

Management & Preservation, Dept of

Agriculture & Lands, PO Box 82, Kosrae,

FM 96944, 011–691–370–3078 FAX: 011–

691–370–3767, E-Mail: dalu@mail.fm

Minnesota

Dr. Nina Archabal, SHPO, Minnesota

Historical Society, 345 Kellogg Boulevard

West, St. Paul, MN 55102–1906, 651–296–

2747 FAX: 651–296–1004

Deputy: Dr. Ian Stewart, 651–297–5513,

Deputy: Ms. Britta L. Bloomberg, 651–296–

5434 FAX: 651–282–2374, E-Mail:

britta.bloomberg@mnhs.org www.mnhs.org

Mississippi

Mr. Elbert Hilliard, SHPO, Mississippi Dept

of Archives & History, P.O. Box 571,

Jackson, MS 39205–0571, 601–359–6850,

Deputy: Mr. Kenneth H. P’Pool, Division of

Historic Preservation, 601–359–6940 FAX:

601–359–6955, kppool@mdah.state.ms.us

Missouri

Mr. Stephen Mahfood, SHPO, State

Department of Natural Resources, 205

Jefferson, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO

65102, 573–751–4422 FAX: 573–751–7627

Deputy: Ms. Claire F. Blackwell, Historic

Preservation Prog, Div of State Parks, 100

E. High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101,

573–751–7858 FAX: 573–526–2852, EMail: nrblacc@mail.dnr.state.us

Deputy: Dr. Douglas K. Eiken,

www.mostateparks.com

Montana

Dr. Mark F. Baumler, SHPO, State Historic

Preservation Office, 1410 8th Avenue, P.O.

Box 201202, Helena, MT 59620–1202, 406–

444–7717 FAX 406–444–6575, E-Mail:

mbaumler@state.mt.us

Deputy: Mr. Herbert E. Dawson,

www.hist.state.mt.us

Nebraska

Mr. Lawrence Sommer, SHPO, Nebraska

State Historical Society, P.O. Box 82554,

1500 R Street, Lincoln, NE 68501, 402–

471–4745 FAX: 402–471–3100, E-Mail:

nshs@nebraskahistory.org

Deputy: Mr. L. Robert Puschendorf, 402–471–

4769 FAX: 402–471–3316

Nevada

Mr. Ronald James, SHPO, Historic

Preservation Office, 100 N Stewart Street,

Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89701–

4285, 775–684–3440 FAX: 775–684–3442

Deputy: Ms. Alice Baldrica, 775–684–3444,

E-Mail: ambaldri@clan.lib.nv.us

www.state.nv.us

New Hampshire

Ms. Nancy C. Dutton, Director/SHPO, NH

Division of Historical Resources, P.O. Box

2043, Concord, NH 03302–2043, 603–271–

6435 FAX: 603–271–3433, TDD: 800–735–

2964, E-Mail: ndutton@nhdhr.state.nh.us

Deputy: Ms. Linda Ray Wilson, 603–271–

6434 or 603–271–3558, E-Mail:

lwilson@nhdhr.state.nh.us www.state.

nh.us/nhdhr

New Jersey

Mr. Robert C. Shinn, SHPO, Dept of Environ

Protection, 401 East State Street, PO Box

402, Trenton, NJ 08625, 609–292–2885

FAX: 609–292–7695

Deputy: Mr. James Hall, Natural and Historic

Resources, 501 East State Street, PO Box

404, Trenton, NJ 08625, 609–292–3541

FAX: 609–984–0836

Deputy: Ms. Dorothy Guzzo, Natural and

Historic Resources, Historic Preservation

Office, 609–984–0176 FAX: 609–984–0578,

E-Mail: dguzzo@dep.state.nj.us

New Mexico

Elmo Baca, SHPO, Historic Preservation Div,

Ofc of Cultural Affairs, 228 East Palace

Avenue, Santa Fe, NM 87503, 505–827–

6320 FAX: 505–827–6338

Deputy: Dorothy Victor, E-Mail:

dvictor@lvr.state.nm.us

Deputy: Jan Biella, E-Mail:

jbiella@lvr.state.nm.us www.museums.

state.nm.us/hpd

New York

Ms. Bernadette Castro, SHPO, Parks,

Recreation & Historic Preservation, Agency

Building #1, Empire State Plaza, Albany,

NY 12238, 518–474–0443

Deputy: Mr. J. Winthrop Aldrich, Deputy,

518–474–9113 FAX 518–474–4492

Historic Preservation Staff: Ms. Ruth L.

Pierpont, Director, Bureau of Field

Services, NY State Parks, Rec. & Hist. Pres.,

Peebles Island PO 189, Waterford, NY

12188–0189, 518–237–8643 x 3269 FAX

518–233–9049, E-Mail: ruth.pierpont@

oprhp.state.ny.us www.nysparks.com

North Carolina

Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow, SHPO, Division of

Archives & History, 4610 Mail Service

Center, Raleigh, NC 27699–4610, 919–733–

7305 FAX: 919–733–8807, E-Mail:

jcrow@ncsl.dcr.state.nc.us

Deputy: Mr. David Brook, Historic

Preservation Office, 4617 Mail Service

Center, Raleigh, NC 27699–4617, 919–733–

4763 FAX: 919–733–8653, E-Mail:

dbrook@ncsl.dcr.state.nc.us http://

www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us

North Dakota

Mr. Samuel Wegner, SHPO, State Historical

Society of North Dakota, 612 E. Boulevard

Ave., Bismarck, ND 58505, 701–328–2666

FAX: 701–328–3710, swegner@state.nd.us

www.state.nd.us/hist

Deputy: Mr. Merl Paaverud, 701–328–2672

Northern Mariana Islands, Commonwealth of

the

Mr. Joseph P. DeLeon Guerrero, HPO, Dept of

Community & Cultural Affairs, Division of

Historic Preservation, Airport Road,

Northern Mariana Islands, Saipan, MP

96950, 670–664–2125 FAX 670–664–2139,

E-Mail: cnmihpo@itecnmi.com

Deputy: Mr. Scott Russell, 670–664–2121

Ohio

Mr. Amos J. Loveday, SHPO, Ohio Historic

Preservation Office, 567 E Hudson Street,

Columbus, OH 43211–1030, 614–297–2600

FAX: 614–297–2233, E-Mail:

ajloveday@aol.com

Deputy: Mr. Franco Ruffini, 614–297–2470

FAX: 614–297–2496, E-Mail: fruffini@

ohiohistory.org www.ohiohistory.org/

resource/histpres

Oklahoma

Dr. Bob L. Blackburn, SHPO, Oklahoma

Historical Society, 2100 N. Lincoln Blvd.,

Oklahoma City, OK 73105, 405–521–2491

FAX 405–521–2492, www.okhistory.mus.ok.us

Deputy: Ms. Melvena Thurman Heisch, State

Historic Preservation Office, 2704 Villa

Prom, Shepherd Mall, Oklahoma City, OK

73107 405–522–4484 FAX: 405–947–2918,

E-Mail: mheisch@ok-history.mus.ok.us

Oregon

Mr. Michael Carrier, SHPO, State Parks &

Recreation Department, 1115 Commercial

Street, NE, Salem, OR 97301–1012, 503–

378–5019 FAX 503–378–8936

Deputy: Mr. James Hamrick, 503–378–4168

x231 FAX 503–378–6447, E-Mail:

james.hamrick@ state.or.us

www.prd.state.or.us/about_shpo.html

Palau, Republic of

Ms. Victoria N. Kanai, HPO, Ministry of

Community & Cultural Affairs, P.O. Box

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64871

100, Koror, Republic of Palau 96940, 011–

680–488–2489 FAX: 680–488–2657

Pennsylvania

Dr. Brent D. Glass, SHPO, Pennsylvania

Historical & Museum Comm, P.O. Box

1026, Harrisburg, PA 17108, 717–787–2891

Deputy: Ms. Brenda Barrett, Bur for Historic

Pres, 717–787–4363 FAX: 717–772–0920,

E-Mail: brenda_barrett@ phmc.state.pa.us

Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of

Ms. Lilliane D. Lopez, SHPO, Office of

Historic Preservation, Box 82, La Fortaleza,

Old San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901, 787–721–

2676 or 3737 FAX 787–723–0957

Deputy: Berenice Sueiro, E-Mail:

bsueiro@prshpo.prstar.net

Rhode Island

Mr. Frederick C. Williamson, SHPO, Rhode

Island Historic Preservation & Heritage

Comm, Old State House, 150 Benefit St.,

Providence, RI 02903, 401–222–2678 FAX:

401–222–2968

Deputy: Mr. Edward F. Sanderson, E-Mail:

rihphc@doa.state.ri.us

South Carolina

Dr. Rodger E. Stroup, SHPO, Department of

Archives & History, 8301 Parklane Road,

Columbia, SC 29223–4905, 803–896–6100

FAX 803–896–6167

Deputy: Ms. Mary W. Edmonds, 803–896–

6168, E-Mail: edmonds@ scdah.state.sc.us

http://www. state.sc.us/scdah/

South Dakota

Mr. Jay D. Vogt, SHPO, State Historic

Preservation Office, Cultural Heritage

Center, 900 Governors Drive, Pierre, SD

57501, 605–773–3458 FAX 605–773–6041,

E-Mail: jay.vogt@state.sd.us http://

www.state.sd.us/state/executive/deca/

cultural/histpres.htm

Tennessee

Mr. Milton Hamilton, SHPO, Dept of

Environment and Conservation, 401

Church Street, L & C Tower 21st Floor,

Nashville, TN 37243–0435, 615–532–0109

FAX: 615–532–0120

Deputy: Mr. Herbert L. Harper, Tennessee

Historical Commission, 2941 Lebanon

Road, Nashville, TN 37243–0442, 615–

532–1550 FAX: 615–532–1549,

www.state.tn.us/environment/hist/hist.htm

Texas

Mr. F. Lawerence Oaks, SHPO, Texas

Historical Commission, P.O. Box 12276,

Austin, TX 78711–2276, 512–463–6100

FAX: 512–475–4872, E-Mail:

l.oaks@thc.state.tx.us

Deputy: Mr. James Wright Steely, Dir Nat’l

Reg Prog, 512–463–5868 FAX: 512–475–

3122, E-Mail: jim.steely@thc.state.tx.us

Deputy: Mr. Stanley O. Graves, Dir,

Architecture Div, 512–463–6094 FAX:

512–463–6095, E-Mail:

stan.graves@thc.state.tx.us

Deputy: Dr. James E. Bruseth, Dir Antiquities

Prot, 512–463–6096 FAX: 512–463–8927,

E-Mail: jim.bruseth@thc.state.tx.us

www.thc.state.tx.us

Utah

Mr. Max Evans, SHPO, Utah State Historical

Society, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, UT

84101, 801–533–3500 FAX: 801–533–3503

Deputy: Mr. Wilson Martin, E-Mail:

wmartin@history.state.ut.us http://

history.utah.org

Vermont

Ms. Emily Wadhams, SHPO, Vermont

Division for Historic Preservation, National

Life Building, Drawer 20, Montpelier, VT

05620–0501, 802–828–3211, E-Mail:

ewadhams@dca.state.vt.us

Deputy: Mr. Eric Gilbertson, Director, 802–

828–3043 FAX 802–828–3206, E-Mail:

ergilbertson@ dca.state.vt.uswww.state.

vt.us/dca/historic/

Virgin Islands

Mr. Dean C. Plaskett, Esq., SHPO,

Department of Planning & Natural

Resources, Cyril E. King Airport, Terminal

Building—Second Floor, St. Thomas, VI

00802, 340–774–3320 FAX: 340–775–5706

Deputy: Ms. Claudette C. Lewis, 340–776–

8605 FAX: 340–776–7236

Virginia

Mr. H. Alexander Wise, Jr, SHPO,

Department of Historic Resources, 2801

Kensington Avenue, Richmond, VA 23221,

804–367–2323 FAX: 804–367–2391, EMail: awise@dhr.state.va.us

Deputy: Kathleen Kilpatrick

Washington

Dr. Allyson Brooks, SHPO, Ofc of Archeology

& Historic Preservation, PO Box 48343, 420

Golf Club Road, SE, Suite 201, Lacey,

Olympia, WA 98504–8343, 360–407–0753

FAX: 360–407–6217,

allysonb@acted.wa.gov

Deputy: Mr. Greg Griffith, 360–407–0753, EMail: gregg@cted.wa.gov

West Virginia

Ms. Renay Conlin, SHPO, West Virginia

Division of Culture & History, Historic

Preservation Office, 1900 Kanawha

Boulevard East, Charleston, WV 25305–

0300, 304–558–0220 FAX: 304–558–2779,

E-Mail: renay.conlin@wvculture.org

Deputy: Ms. Susan Pierce, E-Mail:

susan.pierce@wvculture.org

Wisconsin

Mr. George L. Vogt, SHPO, State Historical

Society of Wisconsin, 816 State Street,

Madison WI 53706, 608–264–6500 FAX:

608–264–6404, E-Mail:

glvogt@mail.shsw.wisc.edu

Deputy: Ms. Alicia L. Goehring, E-Mail:

algoehring@ mail.shsw.wisc. edu

www.shsw.wisc.edu/ahi/index.html

Wyoming

Ms. Wendy Bredehoft, SHPO, Wyoming State

Hist. Pres. Ofc., 2301 Central Avenue, 4th

Floor, Cheyenne, WY 82002, 307–777–

7013 FAX 307–777–3543, E-Mail:

wbrede@missc.state.wy.us

Deputy: Judy K. Wolf, 307–777–6311, E-Mail:

jwolf@missc.state.wy.us

Sheila Bricher-Wade, Reg Ser 307–777–6179,

E-Mail: sbrich@missc.state.wy.us

Mary M. Hopkins, Cult Records 307–766–

5324, http://commerce.state.wy.us/cr/shpo

Associate Members:

Navajo Nation

Dr. Alan Downer, HPO, PO Box 4950,

Window Rock, AZ 86515, 520–871–6437

FAX: 520–871–7886, E-Mail:

hpd_adowner@dine.navajo.org

Lac Du Flambeau of Lake Superior Band

Chippewa Indians

Ms. Patricia A. Hrabik Sebby, THPO, PO Box

67, Lac Du Flambeau, WI 54538, 715–588–

3303

Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians

Ms. Rose A. Kluth, THPO, Leech Lake

Reservation, RR3, Box 100, Cass Lake, MN

56633, 218–335–8200 FAX: 218–335–8309,

E-Mail: rkluth@aol.com

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians

Mr. Kade M. Ferris, THPO, Turtle Mountain

Band of Chippewa Indians, PO Box 900,

Belcourt, ND 58316, E-Mail:

kferris@utma.com

National Governors= Association, National

Alliance of Preservation Commissions,

National Trust for Historic Preservation,

Preservation Action

NCSHPO Officers, Board and Staff

President: Judith Bittner, Alaska, Vice

President: H. Alexander Wise, Jr.,

Secretary: Judith McDonough,

Massachusetts, Treasurer: Cathryn Slater,

Arkansas

Directors: Brenda Barrett, Pennsylvania,

Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota, Theodore

Hild, Illinois, Wilson Martin, Utah, Amos

Loveday, Ohio, Ken P’Pool, Mississippi,

Daniel Abeyta, California, Dorothy Guzzo,

New Jersey, Jay Vogt, South Dakota, F.

Lawerence Oaks, Texas, Ted Sanderson,

Rhode Island, Melvena Heisch, Oklahoma

Executive Director: Nancy Miller

nmncshpo@sso.org

Office Manager: Anita Zepp

azncshpo@sso.org

Senior Program Manager: Andra Reinholz

andra.reinholz@nps.gov

National Park Service—National Center—

http://www.nps.gov/

Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Kate

Stevenson, 202–208–7625

Assistant Director & Manager, Cultural

Resources, 202–343–9596

Archeology and Ethnography, Frank

McManamon, Program Manager, 202–343–

4101

HABS/HAER Division, E. Blaine Cliver,

Chief, 202–343–9618

Heritage Preservation Services Program, Pat

Tiller, Chief, 202–343–9569

Preservation Initiatives Branch, Bryan

Mitchell, Chief, 202–343–9558

Technical Preservation Services Branch,

Sharon Park, Chief, 202–343–9584,

State, Tribal & Local Programs Branch, Joe

Wallis, Chief, 202–343–9564

Museum Management Program, Ann

Hitchcock, Chief Curator, 202–343–9569

National Register, History & Education,

Dwight Picaithley, Chief Historian, 202–

343–9536

Keeper of the National Register of Historic

Places, Carol Shull, 202–343–9536

Park Hist Struct/Cult Landscape Prg, Randall

Biallas, Chief Historical Architect, 202–

343–9588

64872 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

National Park Service—Systems Support

Offices

Anchorage, 907–257–2690, Philadelphia,

215–597–0652, Denver, 303–969–2875,

Atlanta, 404–562–3157, San Francisco,

415–427–1300

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation—

http://www.achp.gov

John Fowler, Executive Director, 202–606–

8503, Ron Anzalone, Assistant to Executive

Director, 202–606–8505, Don Klima,

Director, Office of Planning & Review,

Eastern and Western Regions, 202–606–

8505

National Trust—http://www.nthp.org

Main Number—Washington, DC, 202–588–

6000

Northeast Regional Office, Wendy Nicholas,

Dir, 617–523–0885

Northeast Field Office, Patrick Hauck, Sr

Prog Assoc, 215–991–5778

Southern Field Office, Lisa Burcham, Sr Prog

Assoc, 202–588–6107

Southern Regional Office, John Hildreth, Dir,

843–722–8552

Midwest Regional Office, Jim Mann, Dir,

312–939–5547

Southwest Field Office, Jane Jenkins, Dir,

817–332–4398

Mountains/Plains Regional Office, Barbara

Pahl, Dir, 303–623–1504

Western Regional Office, Elizabeth Goldstein,

Dir, 415–956–0610

Preservation Action—

www.preservationaction.org

Susan West Montgomery, President, 202–

659–0915

Council on America’s Military Past—

camphart1@aol.com

Herbert M. Hart, Executive Director, 703–

912–6124, Updated September 5, 2000

III. Tribal Historic Preservation Officers

(THPO)

In instances where a Tribe does not have

a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, please

contact the appropriate Tribal government

office when responding to this permit

eligibility condition.

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:

(THPO vacant), Tunica-Biloxi Indians of

Louisiana, P.O. Box 331, Marksville, LA

71351

James Bird, Eastern Band of Cherokee

Indians, Quallah Boundary, P.O. Box 455,

Cherokee, NC 28719

Brenda Boyd, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe

Indians, HCR 67, Box 194, Onamia, MN

56395

John Brown, Narragansett Indian Tribe, P.O.

Box 700, Wyoming, RI 02898

Marcia Cross, Confederated Salish and

Kootenai Tribes, P.O. Box 278, Pablo, MT

59855

William Day, Poarch Band of Creek Indians,

5811 Jack Springs Rd., Atmore, AL 36502

Alan S. Downer, Ph.D., Historic Preservation

Dept., Navajo Nation, P.O. Box 4950,

Window Rock, AZ 86515

Kade M. Ferris, Turtle Mountain Band of

Chippewa Indians, P.O. Box 900, Belcourt,

ND 58316

Adeline Fredin, Confederated Tribes of the

Colville Reservation, P.O. Box 150,

Nespelem, WA 99155

Thomas Gates, Cultural Division, Yurok

Tribe, 1034 6th St., Eureka, CA 95501

David Grignon, Menominee Indian Tribe of

Wisconsin, P.O. Box 910, Keshena, WI

54135–0910

Monza V. Honga, Office of Cultural

Resources, Hualapai Tribe, P.O. Box 310,

Peach Springs, AZ 86434

Kelly Jackson, Lac du Flambeau, P.O. Box 67,

Lac du Flambeau, WI 54538

Manfred (Fred) Jaenig, Confederated Tribes of

the Umatilla Reservation, P.O. Box 638,

Pendleton, OR 97801

Sebastian (Bronco) LeBeau, Cheyenne River

Sioux Tribe, P.O. Box 590, Eagle Butte, SD

57625

Tim Mentz, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, P.O.

Box D, Fort Yates, ND 58538

Donna Stern-McFadden, Mescalero Apache

Tribe, P.O. Box 227, Mescalero, New

Mexico 88340

Scott E. Stuemke, Confederated Tribes of

Warm Springs, Cultural Resources

Department, P.O. Box C, Warm Springs, OR

97761

Matthew Vanderhoop, Wampanoag Tribe of

Gay Head (Aquinnah), 20 Black Brook

Road, Aquinnah, MA 02535–9701, Phone:

(508) 645–9265, Fax: (508) 645–3790

John Welch, White Mt. Apache Tribe, P.O.

Box 700, Whiteriver, AZ 85941, Phone:

(520) 338–5430, Fax: (520) 338–5488

Gerald White, Leech Lake Band of Chippewa

Indians, Route 3, Box 100, Cass Lake, MN

56633

Louie J. Wynne, Spokane Tribe of Indians,

P.O. Box 100, Wellpinit, WA 99040

For more information: National Association

of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, D.

Bambi Kraus, President, 1411 K Street NW,

Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:

(202) 628–8476, Fax: (202) 628–2241

IV. Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite

809, Washington, DC 20004 Telephone:

(202) 606–8503/8505, Fax: (202) 606–8647/

8672, E-mail: achp@achp.gov

Addendum C—New Source

Environmental Assessments

Basic Format for Environmental Assessment

This is the basic format for the

Environmental Assessment prepared by EPA

from the review of the applicant’s

Environmental Information Document (EID)

required for new source NPDES permits.

Comprehensive information should be

provided for those items or issues that are

affected; the greater the impact, the more

detailed information needed. The EID should

contain a brief statement addressing each

item listed below, even if the item is not

applicable. The statement should at least

explain why the item is not applicable.

A. General Information

1. Name of applicant

2. Type of facility

3. Location of facility

4. Product manufactured

B. Description Summaries

1. Describe the proposed facility and

construction activity

2. Describe all ancillary construction not

directly involved with the production

processes

3. Describe briefly the manufacturing

processes and procedures

4. Describe the plant site, its history, and

the general area

C. Environmental Concerns

1. Historical and Archeological (include a

statement from the State Historical

Preservation Officer)

2. Wetlands Protection and 100-year

Floodplain Management (the Army

Corps of Engineers must be contacted if

any wetland area or floodplain is

affected)

3. Agricultural Lands (a prime farmland

statement from the Soil Conservation

Service must be included)

4. Coastal Zone Management and Wild and

Scenic Rivers

5. Endangered Species Protection and Fish

and Wildlife Protection (a statement

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

must be included)

6. Air, Water and Land Issues: quality,

effects, usage levels, municipal services

used, discharges and emissions, runoff

and wastewater control, geology and

soils involved, land-use compatibility,

solid and hazardous waste disposal,

natural and man-made hazards involved.

7. Biota concerns: floral, faunal, aquatic

resources, inventories and effects

8. Community Infrastructures available and

resulting effects: social, economic,

health, safety, educational, recreational,

housing, transportation and road

resources.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64873

Addendum D—Notice of Intent Form

64874 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64875

Addendum E—Notice of Termination Form

64876 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64877

Addendum F—No Exposure Certification Form

64878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64879

64880 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–25469 Filed 10–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C