Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0055-0123
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-06-27T04:00Z

Waivers
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
4
151
Section
1.4,
Waivers:
The
existing
waivers
are
overly
conservative
and
their
use
will
be
limited.
We
request
that
EPA
review
these
waivers
and
amend
them
to
more
reasonable
real
life
scenarios
and
make
them
useful
to
the
regulated
community.
The
waivers
referenced
in
Section
1.4
are
consistent
with
Federal
regulations
at
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
15)(
i)(
A)­(
B).
1028
and
1024
4
152
We
recommend
that
EPA
adopt
a
waiver
for
all
construction
activities
that
meet
certain
criteria,
for
instance,
a
construction
site
on
relatively
flat
terrain
that
is
some
minimum
distance
from
any
body
of
water,
with
some
minimum
grade,
and
that
has
no
potential
to
impact
waters
of
the
US
by
pollution
from
storm
water
run
off,
or
is
surrounded
by
cultivated
private
lands.
The
EPA
has
already
adopted
two
waiver
scenarios
for
construction
activities
designed
to
avoid
the
need
for
permitting
under
similar
considerations.
This
comment
is
not
applicable
to
this
action.
If
there
will
be
no
discharge
into
waters
of
the
US,
then
no
permit
coverage
is
necessary.
See
also
response
to
comment
151.
1024
and
1028
4
154
According
to
the
rule,
one
must
either
construct
in
an
area
of
the
country
that
has
an
extremely
"
low
predicted
rainfall
erosivity"
or
"
R"
factor
or
have
a
comprehensive,
location­
specific
evaluation
of
water
quality
impacts
that
includes
existing
in­
stream
concentrations,
expected
growth
in
pollutant
concentrations
from
all
sources,
and
a
margin
of
safety.
The
low
"
R"
factor
is
only
available
in
arid
areas
of
the
country
and
is
time­
sensitive.
The
locationspecific
evaluation
of
water
quality
impacts
will
be
difficult
to
do,
and
the
operator
cannot
commence
construction
until
he
submits
the
equivalent
analysis
to
EPA
for
review
and
approval.
This
requirement
is
so
onerous
and
time­
consuming
that
it
will
be
of
little
practical
use
to
the
small
construction
site.
Comment
acknowledged.
1002
1
Waivers
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
4
155
APSC
does,
however,
have
concerns
that
the
Small
Construction
Waivers
may
not
be
readily
available
to
operators
in
Alaska.
Upon
review
of
Fact
Sheet
3.1,

Construction
Rainfall
Erosivity
Waiver,
it
became
clear
that
critical
erosivity
data
needed
to
calculate
the
modified
"
R"
factor
(
upon
which
the
waiver
applicability
is
based)
are
not
available
for
the
state
of
Alaska.

Attempts
to
determine
if
the
necessary
erosivity
data
is
available
in
Alaska
have
been
unsuccessful.
It
appears
that
Fact
Sheet
3.1
is
currently
under
revision.
Will
the
revised
Fact
Sheet
3.1
include
data
pertinent
to
Alaska?
If
not,
will
this
discrepancy
be
addressed
in
the
permit?
Will
operators
in
Alaska
have
an
alternate
means
of
obtaining
a
Small
Construction
Waiver?
At
present,
rainfall
erosivity
waivers
are
not
available
in
Alaska
as
data
are
not
readily
available.
Should
information
become
available
documenting
eligibility
of
rainfall
erosivity
waivers
in
Alaska,
construction
site
operators
may
use
that
information
in
submitting
a
waiver
certification
form.
1041
4
156
APSC
does
not
believe
that
small
construction
activities
in
the
State
of
Alaska
should
fall
under
the
requirements
of
the
2003
CGP
unless
the
opportunity
for
waivers
are
as
readily
available
for
operators
in
this
state
as
they
are
for
those
located
within
the
contiguous
United
States.
See
response
to
comment
155
1041
4
157
'
R'
Factor
Waiver
for
a
Low
Rainfall
Erosivity
Factor
Should
be
Extended
to
Sites
Larger
Than
1­
5
Acres
(
Proposed
CGP,
pg.
45)
EPA
disagrees.
Federal
regulations
specify
that
waivers
are
only
available
for
small
construction
activities.
See
response
to
comment
151
1058
4
159
Guidance
on
how
to
develop
an
equivalent
analysis
waiver
is
needed.
While
the
"
equivalent
analysis
waiver"
may
be
useful
in
theory,
for
most
developer/
construction
firms,
the
development
of
this
analysis
is
way
beyond
the
capability
of
the
firms,
most
of
whom
are
small
businesses.
NAHB
urges
EPA
to
develop
guidance
that
shows
step
by
step
how
the
equivalent
analysis
waiver
can
be
completed
and
to
issue
it
concurrently
with
the
final
permit.
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
permit.
See
response
to
comment
151.
EPA
considered
developing
guidance
on
how
an
equivalent
analysis
waiver
could
be
completed
but
believes
that
an
equivalent
analysis
waiver
should
reasonably
be
consistent
with
the
TMDL
procedures
in
place
for
the
specific
state.
As
such,
EPA
believes
it
is
appropriate
for
construction
site
operators
that
believe
they
are
eligible
for
the
water
quality
waiver
using
an
equivalent
analysis
to
document
a
rationale
consistent
with
the
applicable
state's
TMDL
procedures.
1057
4
160
Waivers
available
for
small
construction
sites
should
be
extended
to
large
construction
sites.
See
response
to
comment
157.
1057
2
Waivers
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
Document
ID
4
163
ADOT
does
not
anticipate
utilizing
the
two
waivers
for
small
construction
activities
because
it
appears
too
cumbersome
and
detailed
for
our
field
personnel.

ADOT
is
proposing
to
follow
the
same
process
as
if
the
project
disturbed
5
or
more
acres.
EPA
acknowledges
receipt
of
this
comment.
1073
3