Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0055-0124
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-06-27T04:00Z

Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5a
358
The
language
EPA
previously
considered
would
allow
a
regulated
entity
to
rely
on
a
certification
from
a
certified
environmental
professional
who
would
assure
that
the
site
will
employ
the
most
appropriate
BMPs
to
"
effectively
minimize"
the
discharge
of
pollutants.
This
formulation
provides
clarity
and
certainty
to
the
regulated
and
the
regulator,
protects
the
environment,

and
saves
agency
resources
that
would
be
more
productively
directed
toward
training
and
enforcement.
See
response
to
comment
492.
1064
5a
378.1
The
requirements
for
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
(
SWPPP)
add
many
new
requirements
that
significantly
increase
the
paper
burden
of
compliance
without
associated
environmental
benefit,
such
as,
describing
a
'
qualified
personnel'
as
a
licensed
engineer
or
requiring
weather
conditions
to
be
documented
between
best
management
practices
inspections
even
at
remote
unmanned
facilities.
The
CGP
does
not
require
that
"
qualified
personnel"
be
licensed
engineers.

The
CGP
requires
that
inspections
be
performed
by
"
a
person
knowledgeable
in
the
principles
and
practice
of
erosion
and
sediment
controls".
EPA
does
not
believe
that
simple
documentation
of
a
person's
qualifications
in
this
realm
(
e.
g.

"
construction
foreman
with
20
years
experience
in
construction
BMPs",
or
"
project
engineer",
or
"
took
state
(
or
IECA,
or
extension,
etc.)
course
on
implementing
and
maintaining
construction
site
BMPs")
is
a
notable
amount
of
paperwork.
EPA
believes
that
if
the
operator
selects
a
BMP
inspector
with
proper
credentials,
it
will
help
ensure
that
inspection
reports
are
credible.
EPA
believes
this
provides
water
quality
benefits.
EPA
also
believes
that
having
inspections
conducted
by
qualified
individuals
will
save
the
operator
time,
money
and
compliance
problems
because
reports
will
be
more
likely
to
identify
exactly
what
the
real
problems
are,
and
what
needs
to
be
done
to
fix
them.
1038
5a
378.2
EPA
has
seen
numerous
inspection
reports
that
overlook
failing
BMPs
and
provide
very
poor
recommendations
on
solutions,
sometimes
unnecessarily
expensive
and
time­
consuming
solutions.
'
EPA
does
not
believe
that
noting
weather
conditions
in
the
period
since
the
last
inspection
(
e.
g.
"
sunny
and
dry
most
of
the
week,
2"
of
rain
yesterday
afternoon
between
noon
and
4")
in
an
inspection
report
is
a
significant
increase
in
the
paper
burden
of
compliance.

EPA
does
believe
there
is
water­
quality
related
value
to
documenting
this
information.
It
will
help
the
construction
operator
track
the
situations
under
which
BMPs
are
functioning
adequately,
and
when
they
are
not,
so
that
appropriate
modifications
can
be
made.
Part
3.11(
G)(
3)
does
not
require
personnel
to
conduct
"
weather"
inspections
in
between
BMP
inspections,
or
specially
monitor
weather
conditions.
The
requirement
asks
for
a
"
best
estimate"
of
duration
and
timing
of
storm
events,
and
an
"
approximate
amount"

of
precipitation.
1038
1
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5a
414
The
requirements
for
SWPPPs
add
many
new
requirements
that
significantly
increase
the
paper
burden
of
compliance
without
associated
environmental
benefit.
[
one]
of
these
requirements
are
 
defining
a
licensed
engineer
as
an
example
of
"
qualified
personnel"
for
BMP
inspections
infers
a
level
of
expertise
that
is
unnecessary
for
this
permit.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
SWPPP
adds
many
new
requirements
that
significantly
increase
the
paper
burden
without
associated
environmental
benefits.
EPA
added
very
few
new
requirements
to
the
SWPPPs
and,
in
fact,
believes
that
it
streamlined
the
SWPPP
requirements
to
simplify
compliance
efforts
(
i.
e.,
reduced
burden).
Regarding
the
term
"
qualified
personnel,"
EPA
does
not
believe
that
a
licensed
engineer
infers
a
level
of
expertise
that
is
unnecessary
for
this
permit
but
is
removing
that
term
for
clarity.
Specifically,
the
permit
now
defines
"
qualified
personnel"
as
a
"
person
knowledgeable
in
the
principles
and
practice
of
erosion
and
sediment
controls
who
possesses
the
skills
to
assess
conditions
at
the
construction
site
that
could
impact
storm
water
quality
..."
See
response
to
comment
378.
1002
5a
415
Section
3.11.
D:
EPA
states
that
inspections
must
be
conducted
by
qualified
personnel
and
refers
to
licensed
professional
engineer
(
PES)
that
would
meet
this
requirement.
The
requirement
that
inspections
be
conducted
by
PES
is
unreasonable,
unnecessary,

costly
and
overly
complicated
for
the
oil
and
gas
industry.
Field
personnel
that
visit
the
site
on
a
regular
basis
are
individuals
that
provide
the
necessary
maintenance
and
repair
of
the
equipment
at
the
site
and
can
easily
conduct
the
storm
water
inspections.
Regarding
the
term
"
qualified
personnel,"
EPA
does
not
believe
that
a
licensed
engineer
infers
an
unnecessary
level
of
expertise
for
this
permit
but
has
removed
that
term
for
clarity.
Specifically,
the
permit
now
defines
"
qualified
personnel"
as
a
"
person
knowledgeable
in
the
principles
and
practice
of
erosion
and
sediment
controls
who
possesses
the
skills
to
assess
conditions
at
the
construction
site
that
could
impact
storm
water
quality
..."
1028
5a
416
Fact
Sheet­
Section
3.11
.
D.,
Inspections:
This
information
does
not
correspond
to
what
is
provided
in
the
CGP.
We
request
that
this
language
replace
the
language
provided
in
the
CGP
that
alludes
to
inspections
being
completed
by
Professional
Engineers.
Regarding
the
term
"
qualified
personnel,"
EPA
does
not
believe
that
a
licensed
engineer
infers
an
unnecessary
level
of
expertise
for
this
permit
but
has
removed
the
term
"
licensed
engineer"
for
clarity.
Specifically,
the
permit
now
defines
"
qualified
personnel"
as
a
"
person
knowledgeable
in
the
principles
and
practice
of
erosion
and
sediment
controls
who
possesses
the
skills
to
assess
conditions
at
the
construction
site
that
could
impact
storm
water
quality
..."
1028
2
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5a
417.1
Part
3.11.
D:
While
it
may
have
been
EPA's
intent
to
provide
a
broad
definition
allowing
many
types
of
qualified
individuals
to
perform
these
types
of
inspections,
including
those
with
extensive
field
experience
but
limited
formal
training,
Oncor
is
concerned
that
this
criterion
could
be
narrowly
interpreted
unless
it
is
further
clarified.
This
part
could
be
interpreted
to
mean
inspection
personnel
should
either
be
a
licensed
professional
engineer
or
possess
equivalent
credentials.
 
Oncor
is
also
concerned
that
under
such
an
interpretation,
demand
for
inspectors
could
exceed
supply.
...
Oncor
offers
the
following
replacement
wording:
...
See
comment
response
416.
1046
5a
417.2
"
Qualified
personnel"
means
a
person
who
possesses
the
knowledge
and
skills
to
assess
conditions
at
the
construction
site
that
could
impact
storm
water
quality
and
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
any
sediment
and
erosion
control
measures
selected
to
control
the
quality
of
storm
water
discharges
from
the
construction
activity.
Inspector
qualifications
for
sites
with
complicated
issues
or
difficult
areas
should
meet
accepted
industry
standards
for
certification
in
sediment
and
erosion
control.
Inspector
qualifications
for
sites
with
straightforward
issues
should
provide
them
with
the
ability
to
ensure
BMP's
are
properly
installed
and
maintained.
1046
5a
419
The
permit
should
more
clearly
define
"
qualified
personnel"
for
purposes
of
inspection.
If
they
are
not
licensed
professional
engineers,
they
should
be
certified
as
to
their
knowledge
of
the
relevant
topics
before
becoming
authorized
to
make
inspections.
See
comment
response
416.
1065
3
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
7
The
proposed
CGP
contains
more
requirements
than
the
existing
CGP
and
thus
compliance
will
cost
more.

 
These
include:
 
For
long
linear
constructions
such
as
roads,
railroad
tracks,
pipelines,
etc.,
the
new
CGP
requires
additional
inspection
of
intersecting
streams,
drainages,
and
culverts
for
¼
mile
both
upstream
and
downstream
(
page
20).
AAR
recommends
that
the
¼
mile
requirement
be
eliminated.
The
distance
upstream
and
downstream
needs
to
be
left
to
the
discretion
of
the
operator
and
depends
on
specific
site
conditions.
At
many
sites,
the
terrain
may
not
permit
this
distance.
The
commenter
has
misinterpreted
the
requirement
as
stated
in
the
proposed
CGP.
The
requirement
for
linear
construction
projects
is
to
perform
inspections
0.25
miles
on
either
side
of
every
access
point
to
the
construction
site.
An
access
point
consists
of
a
roadway,
undisturbed
right­
of­
way,
etc.
The
requirement
for
operators
to
assess
the
condition
and
viability
of
BMPs
along
this
0.5
mile
stretch
was
included
for
two
reasons:
to
make
the
extent
of
ground
covered
short
enough
to
do
on
foot
as
opposed
to
having
to
use
a
vehicle
(
to
prevent
disturbing
stabilized
earth
along
the
linear
project),
and
to
provide
an
inspection
of
a
representative
slice
of
the
project
instead
of
the
entire
project
(
important
when
there
are
significant
stretches
of
inaccessible
ground).
While
this
requirement
eases
the
inspection
burden
for
linear
projects,
EPA
recognizes
that
for
some
projects
even
the
0.5
mile
reach
inspection
may
include
inaccessible
areas.
1058
5b
8
The
proposed
CGP
contains
more
requirements
than
the
existing
CGP
and
thus
compliance
will
cost
more.

 
These
include:
 
Additional
items
must
be
observed
and
documented
in
the
inspection
report,

including
weather
conditions
during
the
time
since
the
last
inspection,
best
estimates
of
the
beginning
and
duration
of
storm
events,
the
time
elapsed
since
the
last
rainfall
event,
and
approximate
rainfall
amount
(
pages
20­
21).
As
these
new
requirements
can
be
met
by
merely
making
observations
or
gleaning
information
from
publicly
available
sources
(
e.
g.,
local
newscasts),
as
opposed
to
doing
research
or
making
rigorous
measurements,
EPA
does
not
feel
the
requirements
are
onerous
or
costly.
The
information
could
be
of
great
value
in
the
event
of
environmental
problems
and
helps
remind
operators
of
the
need
to
be
observant
and
exercise
due
diligence.
1058
5b
9
The
proposed
CGP
contains
more
requirements
than
the
existing
CGP
and
thus
compliance
will
cost
more.

 
These
include:
 
Location
of
discharges
of
sediment
must
be
documented
(
page
21).
A
properly
designed
and
implemented
SWPPP
should
minimize
discharges
of
sediment
and
other
pollutants.
Sometimes
even
the
best
plans
may
fail
to
prevent
significant
or
visually
obvious
releases
of
pollutants.
EPA
believes
it
is
imperative
for
operators
to
be
cognizant
of
how
well
their
SWPPPs
are
working
or
not
working
and
to
document
those
instances
where
pollution
has
resulted.

This
requirement
is
a
non­
factor
for
those
operators
with
totally
effective
SWPPPs.
1058
5b
10
The
proposed
CGP
contains
more
requirements
than
the
existing
CGP
and
thus
compliance
will
cost
more.

 
These
include:
 
Locations
of
where
additional
BMPs
are
needed
that
did
not
exist
at
the
time
of
inspection
(
page
21).
Updating
SWPPPs
has
always
been
a
CGP
requirement
as
is
the
need
to
implement
additional
controls
whenever
existing
ones
prove
inadequate.

Therefore,
this
particular
requirement,
as
stated,
is
just
a
clarification
and
is
not
new.
1058
4
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
31
The
Permit
requires
that
site
operators
include
with
their
records
dates
when
construction
activities
temporarily
cease
and
dates
when
stabilization
measures
are
initiated
(
3.4(
C).
First,
the
Permit
fails
to
qualify
what
temporary
cessation
of
construction
is
necessary
to
trigger
the
record
requirement,
and
fails
to
specify
what
'
initiation
of
stabilization
measures'

references.
Second,
the
Permit
fails
to
justify
why
these
records
are
necessary,
other
than
to
potentially
position
permittees
for
allegations
of
paperwork
Permit
violations.
Third,
it
does
not
appear
that
the
additional
record
requirements
will
assist
in
improving
water
quality.
These
scheduling
requirements
do
not
appear
to
add
any
value
to
the
Permit
and
should
be
stricken
as
vague
and
burdensome.
While
no
minimum
length
of
time
as
to
what
constitutes
"
temporary
cessation
of
construction"
was
specified
in
the
proposed
CGP,
the
permit
does
require
stabilization
measures
be
initiated
no
more
than
"
14
days
after
the
construction
activity
in
that
portion
of
the
site
has
temporarily
or
permanently
ceased."
See
part
3.14.
E.
EPA
will
add
language
to
part
3.4.
C
to
clarify
the
14
day
time
frame
for
initiating
stabilization.
The
permit
provides
ample
explanation
of
what
constitutes
stabilization.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
assertion
the
justification
of
the
record
requirement
was
not
provided.
Part
3.4.
C
of
the
Fact
Sheet:
"
The
SWPPP
requires
that
specific
construction
dates
be
documented
and
maintained
as
a
way
for
the
construction
operator
as
well
as
EPA
to
determine
applicability
and
implementation
status
of
SWPPP
requirements.
Important
dates
include
when
major
grading
activities
occur,
when
construction
activities
temporarily
or
permanently
cease
on
a
portion
of
the
site,
and
when
stabilization
measures
are
initiated."
1039
5b
55
Section
3.3.
C.
6.
and
Section
3.3.
D:
The
requirement
to
identify
the
nearest
receiving
water
in
both
of
these
sections
is
redundant
since
receiving
waters
were
requested
in
Section
3.3.
B.
4.
EPA
has
clarified
these
sections
of
the
permit
in
an
effort
to
minimize
redundancy.
1028
5b
388
Regarding
Inspection
Schedule:
For
the
listed
7
or
14
calendar
days,
what
is
the
criteria
for
selecting
which
one
is
the
appropriate
one?
EPA
is
leaving
the
selection
of
the
inspection
frequency
to
the
discretion
of
the
site
operator.
1073
5b
389
AGA
recommends
that
EPA
add
the
following
provision
to
allow
"
monthly
inspections
during
the
rainy
season
after
construction
is
completed
in
arid
areas
with
average
annual
precipitation
of
less
than
10
inches".
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
but
disagrees
that
an
extended
period
should
be
provided
for
areas
where
there
is
low
annual
rainfall
or
after
construction
is
completed.
While
the
frequency
and
volume
of
storm
events
is
a
concern,
routine
maintenance
of
storm
water
BMPs
to
ensure
that
the
controls
are
in
place
at
the
time
of
a
storm
event
are
also
of
utmost
importance.
As
such,
EPA
believes
that,
at
a
minimum,
biweekly
inspections
are
generally
appropriate.
1045
5b
390
The
mandated
inspection
after
a
0.5"
storm
is
very
problematic,
so
this
7­
day
alternative
is
welcomed,
but
EPA
should
add
a
14­
day
alternative
schedule
or
longer
for
those
regions
of
the
country
where
waivers
are
not
available
based
on
low
rainfall,
low
erosivity
factors,
but
where
there
is
low
annual
rainfall.
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
but
disagrees
that
an
extended
period
should
be
provided
for
areas
where
there
is
low
annual
rainfall.
While
the
frequency
and
volume
of
storm
events
is
a
concern,
routine
maintenance
of
storm
water
BMPs
to
ensure
that
the
controls
are
in
place
at
the
time
of
a
storm
event
are
also
of
utmost
importance.
As
such,
EPA
believes
that,
at
a
minimum,
biweekly
inspections
are
generally
appropriate.
1057
5
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
391
The
requirements
for
SWPPPs
add
many
new
requirements
that
significantly
increase
the
paperwork
burden
of
compliance
without
associated
environmental
benefit.
Some
of
these
requirements
are:
Requiring
that
weather
conditions
since
the
last
BMP
inspection
be
documented
is
difficult
for
unmanned
remote
facilities
and
of
minimal
benefit
(
3.11.
G.
3)
EPA
does
not
believe
that
noting
weather
conditions
in
the
period
since
the
last
inspection
(
e.
g.
"
sunny
and
dry
most
of
the
week,
2"
of
rain
yesterday
afternoon
between
noon
and
4")
in
an
inspection
report
is
a
significant
increase
in
the
paper
burden
of
compliance.
EPA
does
believe
there
is
water­
quality
related
value
to
documenting
this
information.
It
will
help
the
construction
operator
track
the
situations
under
which
BMPs
are
functioning
adequately,
and
when
they
are
not,
so
that
appropriate
modifications
can
be
made.
Part
3.11(
G)(
3)
does
not
require
personnel
to
conduct
"
weather"
inspections
in
between
BMP
inspections,
or
specially
monitor
weather
conditions.
The
requirement
merely
seeks
a
"
best
estimate"
of
duration
and
timing
of
storm
events,
and
an
"
approximate
amount"
of
precipitation.
1006
5b
392
A
small
construction
site,
by
its
nature,
should
be
afforded
less
stringent
inspections
requirements
as
compared
to
the
sites
that
disturb
5
acres
or
greater.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
small
construction
sites
be
given
less
stringent
inspection
requirements.
EPA
believes
that
small
sites
can
be
more
easily
inspected
than
large
construction
sites.
Such
sites
cover
smaller
areas,
require
less
time
of
the
qualified
personnel
to
conduct
an
inspection,
have
comparably
fewer
discharge
locations,
and
require
less
BMPs.
1028
5b
393
Those
sites
that
have
minimal
to
no
slope
and
those
construction
activities
surrounded
by
cultivated
or
crop
land
or
by
vegetated
ranch
land
should
be
afforded
less
stringent
inspections
requirements.
EPA
disagrees.
If
an
operator
seeks
and
obtains
coverage
by
the
CGP,
the
inspection
requirements
apply
regardless
of
slope
or
surrounding
land
uses.

EPA
notes
that
the
CGP
includes
waiver
provisions
for
small
construction
activity
based
on
the
project's
rainfall
erosivity
(
see
Addendum
D).
If
the
project
satisfies
the
waiver
provisions,
the
operator
does
not
need
to
obtain
coverage
under
this
general
permit.
1024
5b
394
Section
3.11.
F:
The
requirement
to
inspect
1/
4
mile
(
1320
feet)
above
and
below
(
total
of
1/
2
mile)
the
access
point
(
roadway
crossing)
for
linear
construction
activities
is
unreasonable,
unnecessary,
time
consuming,
costly
and
overly
complicated
for
the
oil
and
gas
industry.
A
lesser
inspection
length
would
provide
adequate
representative
evaluation
of
the
site.
See
response
to
comment
304.
1028
5b
395
Section
3.11.
G.
3.
Most
oil
and
gas
activities
are
typically
located
in
remote
areas
where
specific
local
weather
information
is
not
available.
The
requirement
for
an
inspector
to
document
the
beginning
storm
event,
duration,
elapsed
time
since
the
last
storm
event
and
the
approximate
rainfall
of
the
event
would
be
speculation
at
best
and
would
contribute
no
identifiable
benefits
to
the
environment.
See
response
to
comment
399.
1024
6
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
396
The
draft
permit
would
mandate
expanded
inspection
requirement
for
long,
narrow,
linear
construction
activities.
See
Draft
CGP
Section
3.1
1
.
F.
EPA
has
included
modified
inspection
requirements
for
utility
line
installation,

pipeline
construction,
and
other
types
of
long,
narrow,
linear
construction
activities.
Due
to
limited
access
in
many
cases
and
the
potential
for
inspections
to
compromise
stabilized
areas,
or
cause
additional
disturbance
of
soils
or
erosion,
EPA
has
tailored
the
inspection
requirements
to
allow
for
"
representative
inspections".
EPA
believes
these
specialized
provisions
balance
the
need
to
ensure
that
the
pollution
control
measures
described
in
the
project's
SWPPP
are
operating
in
the
manner
indicated
with
the
need
to
account
for
the
constraints
of
these
particular
projects.
1079
5b
397
Section
3.12.
C.:
The
requirement
to
amend
SWPPPs
within
7
calendar
days
of
the
inspection
is
unreasonable.
If
the
inspection
requires
an
amendment
to
the
SWPPP,
operators
need
time
to
obtain
equipment
(
based
on
availability),
implement
those
changes
in
the
field
and
update
the
SWPPP.

Operators
should
be
allowed
at
least
30
days
to
revise
the
plan.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
concern
that
more
than
7
days
is
needed
to
amend
the
SWPPP.
EPA
understands
that
more
than
7
days
may
be
necessary
to
obtain
certain
equipment,
but
that
does
not
prevent
the
SWPPP
from
being
updated
to
reflect
the
necessary
changes.
See
also
response
to
comment
398.
1024
5b
398
Section
3.12.
C.:
The
requirement
to
amend
SWPPPs
within
7
calendar
days
of
the
inspection
is
unreasonable.
If
the
inspection
requires
an
amendment
to
the
SWPPP,
operators
need
time
to
obtain
equipment
(
based
on
availability),
implement
those
changes
in
the
field
and
update
the
SWPPP.

Operators
should
be
allowed
at
least
30
days
to
revise
the
plan.
EPA
believes
it
is
unnecessary
to
provide
30
days
to
revise
the
SWPPP
if
the
inspection
determines
that
additional
or
modified
BMPs
are
necessary.
In
EPA's
opinion,
operators
have
sufficient
time
to
make
the
necessary
amendments
within
seven
calendar
days.
The
requirement
to
amend
SWPPPs
within
seven
calendar
days
should
be
viewed
as
separate
and
distinct
from
the
deadline
to
implement
modified
BMPs.
The
operator
has
seven
days
to
revise
the
applicable
written
descriptions
in
the
SWPPP
document
of
the
BMP
controls,
but
has
until
the
next
anticipated
storm
event
to
implement
the
modified
BMPs.
If
the
implementation
deadline
is
impracticable
(
and
the
reasons
are
included
in
the
SWPPP),
the
operator
may
be
allowed
to
implement
measures
as
soon
as
practicable.
1028
7
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
399
Part
3.11.
G.
3:
...
Oncor
believes
it
is
both
unnecessary
and
burdensome
to
track
weather
information
to
this
detail.
Such
a
regimen
for
a
long
linear
project
would
be
near
impossible
to
implement
because
of
differing
storm
impacts
along
the
length
of
the
project.
In
addition,
such
information
would
have
absolutely
no
bearing
if
the
proposed
new
alternative
inspection
frequency
in
Part
3.1
1
.
A.
1
of
once
per
week
were
selected
since
the
inspections
are
not
triggered
by
a
storm
event.
This
item
also
ignores
the
possibility
that
the
event
could
be
a
snow
storm
in
which
case
the
relevant
issue
would
actually
be
runoff
from
snow
melt.

Oncor
offers
the
following
replacement
wording:
3.
The
reason
the
inspection
is
being
conducted,
i.
e.
storm
event
equal
to
or
greater
than
0.5
inches,
or
routine
inspection.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
noting
weather
conditions
in
the
period
since
the
last
inspection
(
e.
g.
"
sunny
and
dry
most
of
the
week,
2"
of
rain
yesterday
afternoon
between
noon
and
4)
in
an
inspection
report
is
a
significant
increase
in
the
paper
burden
of
compliance.
EPA
does
believe
there
is
water­
quality
related
value
to
documenting
this
information.
It
will
help
the
construction
operator
track
the
situations
under
which
BMPs
are
functioning
adequately,
and
when
they
are
not,
so
that
appropriate
modifications
can
be
made.
Part
3.11(
G)(
3)
does
not
require
personnel
to
conduct
"
weather"
inspections
in
between
BMP
inspections,
or
specially
monitor
weather
conditions.
The
requirement
asks
for
a
"
best
estimate"
of
duration
and
timing
of
storm
events,
and
an
"
approximate
amount"
of
precipitation.
For
linear
projects,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
a
weekly
summation
of
weather
conditions
is
any
more
difficult
than
for
any
other
type
of
project.
EPA
agrees
that
inspection
reports
should
document
runoff
from
snowmelt.
1046
5b
400
AGA
recommends
that
EPA
modify
Section
3.4,
C.
to
read
as
follows.
"
The
following
records
must
be
maintained
as
part
of
the
SWPPP
for
large
construction
projects."
We
request
this
change
because
most
small
utility
construction
projects
are
completed
in
a
short
period
of
time
and/
or
constructed
in
short
phases,
so
that
only
small
portions
of
trench
are
open
at
any
one
time.
Major
grading
activities
and
stabilization
measures,
therefore
occur
simultaneously
and
the
dates
would
be
redundant
and
confusing.
EPA
disagrees.
The
SWPPP
is
a
living
document
which
demonstrates
not
only
what
activity
occurred
on
the
site
between
commencement
of
construction
and
final
stabilization,
but
also
what
actions
were
taken
by
the
permittee
to
control
potential
discharges
and
related
impacts.
The
SWPPP
should
reflect
all
construction
and
stabilization
activities,
even
where
the
timing
is
simultaneous,

in
order
to
provide
a
complete
record
of
the
permittee's
construction
and
storm
water
control
activities.
EPA
notes
that
once
a
definable
area
of
the
project
has
been
stabilized,
the
SWPPP
may
be
revised
to
show
this
change
and
no
further
SWPPP
requirements
will
apply.
See
Section
3.1.
C.
1045
5b
401.1
AGA
recommends
that
EPA
modify
Section
3.13,
A.
to
exempt
utility
small
construction
projects
from
the
requirement
for
a
"
notice
of
the
(
SWPPP)
plan's
location
must
be
posted
near
the
main
entrance
at
the
construction
site."
AGA
also
recommends
that
EPA
replace
the
proposed
version
of
Section
3.73,
B.
with
a
provision
calling
for
an
annual
public
notice
in
a
local
newspaper,
describing
how
the
public
can
obtain
SWPPPs.
EPA
clarifies
that
the
Section
3.13.
A
requirement
to
post
a
notice
of
the
SWPPP's
location
is
only
required
if
there
is
no
on­
site
location
to
store
the
plan.
This
notice
is
not
required
if
a
copy
of
the
SWPPP
is
kept
on
site.
EPA
does
not
agree
that
relieving
small
utility
construction
projects
from
this
requirement
would
be
justified.
However,
if
there
is
no
main
entrance
because
the
project
involves
linear
construction,
the
permittee
may
post
the
notice
at
a
";
publicly
accessible
location
near
the
active
part
of
the
construction
project";,

along
with
the
Section
3.13.
B
sign.
The
notice
may
also
be
posted
at
a
local
public
building
such
as
the
town
hall
or
public
library.
1045
8
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
401.2
EPA
also
declines
to
adopt
the
commenter's
suggested
revision
to
replace
the
Section
3.13.
B
posting
requirement
with
a
provision
allowing
for
annual
public
notice
in
a
local
newspaper.
Due
to
the
often
short­
term
duration
of
construction
projects,
EPA
believes
the
existing
requirement
to
conspicuously
post
notice
of
the
NOI
is
more
appropriate.
An
annual
public
notice
requirement
would
be
insufficient
to
provide
adequate
notice
of
the
permit
and
the
SWPPP.
1045
5b
402
There
needs
to
be
a
mechanism
by
which
the
permitting
authority
confirms
that
the
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
as
identified
by
the
permittee
in
the
storm
water
pollution
prevent
plan
(
SWPPP)
will,
in
fact,
meet
water
quality
standards
if
properly
designed
and
implemented.
The
inspection
requirements
(
pp.
19­
20)
should
link
up
with
these
requirements
by
requiring
the
inspector
to
note
and
report
any
indication
that
discharges
are
occurring
that
may
cause
or
contribute
to
a
water
quality
violation,

such
as
a
broken
silt
fence,
muddy
water
leaving
the
site,
mud
residue
in
the
street,
discoloration
of
receiving
water
bodies,
etc.
There
also
needs
to
be
external
verification
of
compliance
with
this
requirement
by
having
a
vigorous
inspection
and
monitoring
program.
EPA
believes
the
following
provisions
(
section
numbers
from
draft
permit)
are
adequate
to
address
commenter's
recommendation
to
report
potential
water
quality
standards
violations:
3.10.
G
(
requiring
inspection
reports
include
the
location
of:
discharges
of
sediment
or
other
pollutants
from
the
site;
BMPs
that
need
to
be
maintained;
BMPs
that
failed
to
operate
as
designed
or
proved
inadequate
for
a
particular
location;
and
incidences
of
noncompliance
with
the
permit);
3.6
(
requiring
various
actions
to
maintain
BMPs);
3.13.
A
(
requiring
corrective
measures
for
BMPs
if
found
through
an
inspection
to
not
be
used
correctly);
4.5
(
regarding
non­
attainment
of
water
quality
standards);
and
8.1
(
duty
to
comply
with
the
permit).
These
provisions
have
been
retained
in
the
final
CGP.
1065
5b
403
The
inspection
reports
should
indicate
incidents
of
noncompliance
with
permit
conditions,
including
with
any
aspect
of
the
SWPPP.
The
permit
should
clarify
that
the
inspector
should
report
not
only
the
location
of
discharges
and/
or
BMPs
that
need
to
be
installed,

maintained,
or
replaced,
but
also
the
observations
based
on
which
the
inspector's
determination
was
made.
See
comment
response
402.
1065
5b
404
SWPPPs
must
be
accessible
to
the
public
since
they
are
the
implementing
mechanism
for
an
NPDES
permit.
33
U.
S.
C.
1342(
j).
EPA
does
not
agree
that
SWPPPs
are
documents
that
must
be
publicly
accessible,
nor
that
33
U.
S.
C.
1342(
j)
compels
such
access.
SWPPPs
are
neither
permits,
nor
permit
applications.
EPA
does
believe
it
is
in
the
operator's
best
interest
to
work
with
public
requests
to
view
SWPPPs,
and
intends
to
obtain
copies
of
SWPPPs
for
the
public
upon
request.
The
CGP
does
include
a
provision
that
SWPPPs
must
be
made
available
upon
request
to
EPA;
a
State,

Tribal
or
local
agency
approving
sediment
and
erosion
plans,
grading
plans,
or
storm
water
management
plans;
local
government
officials;
etc.
1065
9
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
405
We
are
concerned
that
operators
are
not
required
to
include
their
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(
SWPP)
with
their
NOI.
 
Operators
should
be
required
to
submit
a
SWPP
for
comment
and
approval
to
the
regulating
agency,
which
would
enable
the
public
to
review
the
SWPP
upon
request.
Operators
are
required
to
provide
their
SWPPP
to
EPA
for
review
and
comment
upon
request,
but
not
with
their
NOI.
EPA
has
the
authority
to
require
modifications
to
the
SWPPP,
and
can
take
enforcement
action
for
failure
to
develop
an
adequate
SWPPP.

Currently
EPA
does
not
have
a
process
for
review
of
SWPPPs
prior
to
or
concurrent
with
issuance
of
permit
coverage.
EPA
is
considering
mechanisms
to
make
SWPPPs
and
NOIs
more
readily
available
for
public
review.
EPA
is
also
considering
mechanisms
by
which
NOIs
could
be
screened,
so
that
potentially
high
risk
construction
projects
could
be
reviewed.
However,
EPA
believes
it
is
highly
unlikely
in
the
near­
term
that
it
will
be
possible
to
review
all
construction
site
NOIs
because
of
the
sheer
numbers.
EPA
clarifies
that
the
mechanisms
for
enhanced
NOI
scrutiny
currently
under
consideration
will
not
be
in
place
when
this
CGP
goes
into
effect.
Some
could
be
on­
line
within
the
next
year
or
so.
1054
5b
406
There
should
be
a
process
for
the
public
to
review
and
comment
on
proposed
SWPPs.
The
permit
does
not
require
that
the
general
public
have
access
to
the
construction
site
nor
does
it
require
that
copies
of
the
plan
be
available
or
mailed
to
members
of
the
public.
However,
EPA
strongly
encourages
permittees
to
provide
public
access
to
SWPPPs
at
reasonable
hours.
Upon
request,
EPA
intends
to
assist
members
of
the
public
in
obtaining
access
to
permitting
information,
including
SWPPPs.
EPA
believes
this
approach
will
create
a
balance
between
the
public's
need
for
information
on
projects
potentially
impacting
their
water
bodies
and
the
site
operator's
need
for
safe
and
unimpeded
work
conditions.
1054
5b
407
The
Permit
requires
that
site
operators
include
with
their
records
dates
when
construction
activities
temporarily
cease
and
dates
when
stabilization
measures
are
initiated
(
Permit
Sec.
3.4(
C)).
First,
the
Permit
fails
to
qualify
what
temporary
cessation
of
construction
is
necessary
to
trigger
the
record
requirement,
and
fails
to
specify
what
"
initiation
of
stabilization
measures"
references.
Second,
the
Permit
fails
to
justify
why
these
recordations
are
necessary,

other
than
to
potentially
position
permittees
for
allegations
of
paperwork
Permit
violations.
Third,
it
does
not
appear
that
the
additional
record
requirements
will
assist
in
improving
water
quality.

These
scheduling
requirements
do
not
appear
to
add
any
value
to
the
Permit
and
should
be
stricken
as
vague
and
burdensome.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertions.
Stabilization
is
a
key
component
of
erosion
control
with
temporary
stabilization
being
critical
for
portions
of
construction
projects
where
work
has
ceased
temporarily.
As
noted
in
section
3.13.
D,
EPA
considers
temporary
stabilization
to
be
required
where
construction
activities
on
a
portion
of
a
site
are
stopped,
either
temporarily
or
permanently,
for
at
least
14
days.
EPA
considers
"
initiation
of
stabilization
measures"
to
be
the
act
of
applying
cover
to
the
ground,
but
not
necessarily
that
the
cover
has
matured
at
that
point.
EPA
does
expect
that
"
initiation"
will
have
occurred
on
the
entire
portion
of
the
site,
rather
than
just
initiating
on
a
portion
of
the
site,
on
which
construction
activities
have
temporarily
or
permanently
ceased.
EPA
believes
documentation
of
construction
activities
is
critical
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
BMPs
in
given
situations
and
to
be
to
adjust
practices
accordingly
to
better
handle
future
situations.
1055
10
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
408
The
operator
is
required
to
include
a
record
of
each
inspection
with
their
SWPP
on
site
but
there
is
no
indication
of
a
schedule
for
monitoring
by
the
regulating
agency
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
inspection
requirements.
These
inspection
requirements
should
be
regularly
monitored
and,
when
needed,
enforced
by
the
regulating
agency.
EPA
has
the
general
right
of
entry
to
conduct
inspections
of
the
permittee's
project
site
and
of
its
records,
and
can
exercise
this
authority
as
it
deems
necessary
to
assess
compliance
as
per
Section
8.9.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
periodic
inspections
by
the
Agency
will
help
ensure
compliance
with
the
permittee's
own
requirement
to
inspect,
and
to
gauge
compliance
with
the
permit
in
general.
The
CGP
does
not
establish
a
pre­
set
schedule
for
conducting
inspections.
An
appropriate
schedule
should
be
developed
on
a
Region
by
Region
basis
reflecting
EPA's
overall
resources
to
conduct
site
inspections
and
the
need
to
target
such
inspections
based
on
water
quality
and
compliance
concerns.
1054
5b
409
Weather
information
should
not
be
required
on
the
inspection
report.
...
This
is
a
ridiculous
amount
of
information,
especially
for
those
that
opt
to
do
the
7­

day
inspection
cycle.
Where
would
even
a
meteorologist
get
this
kind
of
site­
specific
information?
EPA
does
not
believe
that
noting
weather
conditions
in
the
period
since
the
last
inspection
(
e.
g.
"
sunny
and
dry
most
of
the
week,
2"
of
rain
yesterday
afternoon
between
noon
and
4")
in
an
inspection
report
is
a
significant
increase
in
the
paper
burden
of
compliance.
EPA
does
believe
there
is
water­
quality
related
value
to
documenting
this
information.
It
will
help
the
construction
operator
track
the
situations
under
which
BMPs
are
functioning
adequately,
and
when
they
are
not,
so
that
appropriate
modifications
can
be
made.
Part
3.10(
G)(
3)
does
not
require
personnel
to
conduct
"
weather"
inspections
in
between
BMP
inspections,
or
specially
monitor
weather
conditions.
The
requirement
asks
for
a
"
best
estimate"
of
duration
and
timing
of
storm
events,
and
an
"
approximate
amount"
of
precipitation.
1057
5b
410
Inspection
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
 

Proposed
CGP
Sections
Affected
by
this
Comment:

Section
3.11
 
Fact
Sheet
Sections
Affected
by
this
Comment:
Section
3.11
 
The
frequency
and
documentation
details
required
for
inspection
activities
would
be
very
burdensome
for
oil
and
gas
activities,

which
involve
small,
simple,
remote,
and
widely
dispersed
oil
and
gas
locations.
While
corrections
to
physical
storm
water
control
measures
can
be
made
quickly
in
response
to
problems,
the
requirement
to
amend
the
SWPPP
document
itself
within
seven
days
is
impractical,
due
to
the
widely
dispersed,
remote
nature
of
the
activities.
Moreover,
the
location
of
the
clearing,
grading,
and
excavating
activity
will
move
relatively
quickly
from
location
to
location,
making
it
impractical
to
keep
site­
specific
records.
EPA
has
postponed
the
permit
application
deadline
for
oil
and
gas
construction
activity
disturbing
1
to
5
acres
from
March
10,
2003
until
March
10,
2005.
See
68
Federal
Register
11325.
The
two­
year
postponement
will
allow
for
time
for
EPA
to
analyze
and
better
evaluate
:
the
impact
of
the
permit
requirements
on
the
oil
and
gas
industry;
the
appropriate
best
management
practices
for
preventing
contamination
of
storm
water
runoff
resulting
from
construction
association
with
oil
and
gas
exploration,
production,
processing,
or
treatment
operations
or
transmission
facilities;
and
the
scope
and
effect
of
33
U.
S.
C.

1342(
l)(
2)
and
other
storm
water
provisions
of
the
CWA.
See,
also,
response
to
comment
304.
1061
11
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
411
The
inspection
reports
should
indicate
incidents
of
noncompliance
with
permit
conditions,
including
with
any
aspect
of
the
SWPPP.
EPA
believes
the
existing
provisions
in
Section
3.10.
G,
requiring
inspection
reports
to
"
identify
any
incidents
of
non­
compliance
with
permit
conditions"
and
directing
inspectors
to
certify
that
the
construction
project
or
site
is
in
compliance
with
the
SWPPP
if
there
are
no
such
incidents,
are
adequate
to
address
commenter's
request
for
including
non­
compliance
with
the
SWPPP.

These
provisions
have
been
retained
in
the
final
CGP.
2002
5b
412
The
permit
should
clarify
that
the
inspector
should
report
not
only
the
location
of
discharges
and/
or
BMPs
that
need
to
be
installed,
maintained,
or
replaced,
but
also
the
observations
based
on
which
the
inspector's
determination
was
made.
EPA
believes
it
is
sufficient
to
require
such
inspection
reports
to
include
determinations
on
discharge
location
and
BMP
installation,
performance,
and
maintenance,
as
per
Section
3.10.
G,
without
requiring
the
qualified
personnel
to
record
additional
observations
to
support
those
findings.
2002
5b
413
Public
availability:
SWPPPs
must
be
accessible
to
the
public
since
they
are
the
implementing
mechanism
for
an
NPDES
permit.
33
U.
S.
C.
1342(
j).
See
response
to
comment
404.
2002
5b
454.1
Water
quality
standards:
I
support
the
limitation
on
coverage
to
discharges
that
meet
water
quality
standards
and
the
clear
statement
that
discharges
that
cause
or
contribute
to
water
quality
standards
violations
are
not
authorized.
(
p.
9).
These
provisos,

are,
of
course,
requirements
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.

33
U.
S.
C.
1311(
b)(
1)(
C).
These
provisions
are
not
selfimplementing
however.
There
needs
to
be
a
mechanism
by
which
the
permitting
authority
confirms
that
the
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
as
identified
by
the
permittee
in
the
stormwater
pollution
prevent
plan
(
SWPPP)
will,
in
fact,
meet
water
quality
standards
if
properly
designed
and
implemented.
The
inspection
requirements
(
pp.
19­
20)
should
link
up
with
these
requirements
by
requiring
the
inspector
to
note
and
report
any
indication
that
discharges
are
occurring
that
may
cause
or
contribute
to
a
water
quality
violation,
such
as
a
broken
silt
fence,
muddy
water
leaving
the
site,
mud
residue
in
the
street,
discoloration
of
receiving
water
bodies,
etc.
EPA
believes
that
the
inspection
report
requirements
do
address
the
issues
raised
in
this
comment:

1)
3.10(
G)(
5)
requires
the
operator
to
note
all
locations
of
discharges
of
sediment
or
other
pollutants
from
the
site.

2)
3.10(
G)(
6)
requires
the
operator
to
note
all
locations
of
BMPs
needing
maintenance.

3)
3.10(
G)(
7)
requires
the
operator
to
note
all
locations
of
BMPs
that
failed
to
operate
as
designed
or
proved
inadequate
for
a
particular
location.

4)
3.10(
E)
specifies
that
the
operator
must
inspect
all
accessible
discharge
locations,
and
where
the
discharge
location
is
inaccessible
that
the
operator
must
inspect
downstream
locations.
Inspectors
must
look
for
evidence
of,
or
the
potential
for,
pollutants
entering
the
stormwater
conveyance
system.
2002
12
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5b
454.2
There
also
needs
to
be
external
verification
of
compliance
with
this
requirement
by
having
a
vigorous
inspection
and
monitoring
program.
See
generally
Santa
Clara
Valley
Audubon
Society,
'
Stormwater
and
Sediment:
An
Evaluation
of
San
Jose's
Constructionsite
Monitoring
and
Enforcement
Program,'
Aug.
19,

2002.
Evidence
of
a
discharge
(
i.
e.
a
visible
plume
of
sediment
in
the
water)
may
not
provide
information
on
exactly
how
that
discharge
relates
to
a
numeric
water
quality
standard.
However,
the
CGP
is
structured
such
that
the
operator
should
assume
when
such
evidence
is
found
that
BMPs
are
functioning
improperly,

and
must
repair
or
enhance
the
BMPs
to
eliminate
such
discharges.
EPA
believes
that
this
system
is
protective
of
water
quality
because
it
provides
for
an
immediate
solution
to
a
discharge
(
instead
of
waiting
perhaps
many
days
for
the
results
of
sample
analysis)
of
a
pollutant
(
soil)
that
is
easily
detected
visually.

EPA
concurs
that
vigorous
compliance
inspection
programs
greatly
enhance
the
success
of
the
program.
The
ability
of
EPA
and
other
permitting
authorities
to
implement
compliance
programs
is
often
affected
by
resource
limitations.
2002
5c
351
EPA
should
clarify
that
it
will
not
require
numeric
limits
to
satisfy
the
intent
of
the
CGP
and
maintain
water
quality
standards.
EPA
has
long
and
correctly
maintained
that
BMPs
are
adequate
to
meet
the
technology
standards 
AGC
has
estimated­
based
on
technical
input
from
URS
Corporation­
that
"
numeric
limits"
would
add
at
least
$
35,000
to
the
cost
of
the
typical
construction
project.
This
figure
does
not
account
for
designing,
installing,
and
maintaining
a
storm
water
treatment
system
to
meet
a
specific
pollutant
removal
requirement,
which
could
easily
exceed
$
100,000
per
project.
EPA
clarifies
that
at
this
time
there
are
no
plans
to
incorporate
numeric
effluent
limits
into
the
CGP.
Individual
discharges
may
be
subject
to
numeric
effluent
limits
if
a
TMDL
makes
such
provision,
or
if
EPA
makes
the
determination
that
standard
CGP
coverage
will
not
be
adequate
to
protect
water
quality.
1079
13
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5c
361.1
The
draft
permit
contains
no
numeric
effluent
limits,

relies
on
the
"
presumptive"
approach,
and
requires
no
sampling
on
the
part
of
the
permittee.
With
such
an
approach,
the
Action
Team
questions
whether
the
nation's
waters
will
be
protected,
and
whether
permittees
themselves
will
know
whether
the
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
they
employ
are
proving
successful
in
managing
runoff.
The
Action
Team
believes
that
if
narrative
(
rather
than
numeric)

effluent
limits
are
used
in
the
construction
permit,
there
should
be
mechanisms
in
the
permit
to:
Minimize
runoff
in
the
first
place;
Provide
a
feedback
loop
that
informs
the
permittee
when
additional
BMPs
are
needed;
and
Protect
our
region's
most
sensitive
waters.
The
CGP
requires
construction
operators
to
consider
the
functionality
and
performance
standards
of
the
BMP
technologies
they
are
implementing,
just
as
they
would
for
any
other
aspect
of
their
operation
(
i.
e.
earthmoving
equipment,

construction
materials).
Vendors
generally
provide
information
on
effectiveness
of
their
products.
Engineers
and
other
professionals
can
design
systems
to
certain
specifications.
The
National
Storm
Water
BMP
Database
provides
data
on
the
effectiveness
of
certain
types
of
BMPs.
There
are
numerous
guidance
manuals
and
other
materials
on
designing
and
implementing
construction
site
BMPs
(
e.
g.,
the
National
Storm
Water
BMP
Database
(
http://
www.
bmpdatabase.
org/
),
the
Construction
Industry
Compliance
Assistance
Web
Site
(
http://
www.
envcap.
org/
cica/
index.
cfm)).
EPA
also
requires
construction
operators
to
take
some
responsibility
for
evaluating
effectiveness
of
BMPs,
and
making
determinations
regarding
water
quality.
1053
5c
361.2
For
a
general
permitting
program
to
work,
permittees
cannot
rely
on
the
permitting
authority
to
make
all
of
the
evaluations
and
judgments.
EPA
believes
that
construction
operators
are
capable
of
noting
if
their
construction
activities
are
producing
sediment­
laden
discharges.
EPA
believes
that
the
SWPPP
requirements
of
the
CGP
do
require
minimization
of
pollutants,
and
also
provide
an
inspection
and
correction
feed­
back
loop.
The
CGP
requires
permittees
to
comply
with
all
TMDL
allocations,
but
otherwise
makes
no
special
provisions
for
sensitive
waters.
1053
14
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5c
364
The
Permit
Improperly
Seeks
to
Regulate
Hydrology
Rather
Than
Water
Quality.
[
referring
to
permit
section
3.14(
G)
and
fact
sheet
section
3.14(
G)]
The
rate
of
water
flow
is
not
a
"
discharge
of
pollutants,"
as
that
phrase
is
defined
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
33
U.
S.
C.

Sec.
1342(
p)(
3)(
B)(
iii),
Clean
Water
Act
Sec.

402(
p)(
3)(
B)(
iii)).
Additionally,
case
law
interpreting
the
Clean
Water
Act
uniformly
has
found
the
definition
of
"
pollutant"
does
not
include
downstream
erosion
(
See
e.
g,
National
Wildlife
Fed'n
v.
Gorsuch,
693
F.
2d
156,

171­
72
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1982);
Missouri
ex
rel.
Ashcroft
v.

Department
of
the
Army,
672
F.
2d
1297,
1304
(
8th
Cir.
1982)).
The
Permit
provisions
seeking
to
regulate
hydrology,
are
therefore,
invalid
and
should
be
removed.
The
permit
does
not
require
any
specific
BMPs,
only
the
implementation
of
a
suite
of
BMPs
that
will
be
effective
at
preventing
the
discharge
of
sedimentladen
water.
The
permittee
is
free
to
design
a
combination
of
BMPs
that
suit
his
or
her
purposes.
EPA
is
not
regulating
hydrology.

Erosion
is
caused
by
water,
moving
at
erosive
velocities,
across
bare
soil.
It
is
much
more
effective
and
inexpensive,
to
prevent
erosion
by
minimizing
the
amount
of
water
and/
or
the
velocity
of
water
traversing
bare
soils.
Since
the
rate
of
water
directly
influences
the
pollutant
content
of
the
water,
most
erosion
control
specialists
recommend
the
implementation
of
flow
control
BMPs.
EPA
is,
however,
regulating
water
quality.
1055
5c
370
We
support
this
role
of
BMPs
and
ask
that
EPA
continue
to
embrace
a
BMP­
based
approach
in
this
proposed
CGP.
Similarly,
EPA
should
not
require
numeric
limits
as
the
means
to
implement
the
CGP.

Rather,
EPA
should
continue
to
support
the
position
that
these
numeric
limits
are
not
required
or
reasonable
and
that
BMPs
are
sufficient
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
regulations.
This
is
appropriate
because
of
the
variable
nature
of
wet
weather
events
which
makes
the
accurate
and
proper
implementation
of
sampling
techniques
difficult,
yielding
unreliable
sampling
results.
EPA
has
not,
and
is
not,
proposing
the
use
of
numeric
limits
in
the
Construction
General
Permit
(
CGP).
Individual
construction
site
discharges
may
need
to
comply
with
numeric
effluent
limits,
if
this
is
necessary,
to
be
consistent
with
an
available
wasteload
allocation
in
a
TMDL
approved
by
EPA,
or
because
EPA
determines
it
is
necessary
due
to
discharge
compliance
issues.

EPA
believes
that
construction
operators
are
capable
of
noting
if
their
construction
activities
are
producing
sediment­
laden
discharges,
an
obvious
indication
that
their
discharge
is
a
threat
to
water
quality.
As
long
as
construction
site
operators
are
diligent
in
their
inspections,
and
timely
and
appropriate
in
fixing
identified
problems,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
needing
to
incorporate
numeric
effluent
limits
in
the
CGP.
1070
15
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5c
371
I
am
concerned
however,
with
parts
of
the
proposed
GPSWD
[
General
Permit
for
Storm
Water
Discharges]

that
imply
the
use
of
numeric
limits
to
control
pollutant
discharges.
There
also
have
been
several
comments
posted
to
this
docket
that
express
or
imply
that
numeric
limits
are
necessary.
I
am
opposed
to
the
application
of
numeric
limits
as
it
applies
to
construction
site
discharges.
In
order
to
comply
with
a
numeric
limit
protocol,
contractors
would
be
required
to
monitor,
sample,
and
seek
lab
results
to
show
compliance
with
the
limits
set.
This
is
onerous
and
impractical.
I
strongly
suggest
that
the
EPA
stay
the
course
on
the
sensible
and
reasonable
method
to
deal
with
stormwater
pollution
by
requiring
the
proper
use
and
application
of
BMPs
rather
than
sampling
and
monitoring
discharges
to
prove
compliance.
See
response
to
comment
370.
1078
5c
421
Section
1.3.
C.
5,
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs):

The
requirement
to
have
oil
and
gas
operators
conduct
discharge
monitoring
in
accordance
with
a
TMDLs
is
unreasonable,
unnecessary,
time
consuming,
costly
and
overly
complicated
for
the
oil
and
gas
industry
based
on
the
information
described
in
item
4
above.

Installation
and
proper
use
of
best
management
practices)
should
be
acceptable
to
ensure
protection
of
water
bodies.
,
The
CGP
does
not
require
oil
and
gas
operators
to
monitor
discharges.
Rather,

those
discharging
to
receiving
water
with
TMDLs
are
simply
required
to
be
consistent
with
the
assumptions
and
requirements
of
any
available
wasteload
allocation
in
such
TMDL.
In
some
instances,
TMDLs
only
provide
for
installation
and
proper
use
of
BMPs.
1028
5c
422
(
reference
p.
30
of
the
draft
permit)
We
are
unaware
of
any
monitoring
requirements
indicated
in
the
general
permit.
Therefore,
due
to
the
erratic
and
flashy
nature
of
storm
water
flows,
we
object
to
the
sampling
requirements
indicated
in
this
section.
Any
efforts
that
would
be
spent
on
storm
water
sampling
would
be
much
better
spent
on
inspection
and
maintenance
of
erosion
and
sediment
controls.
Part
B
refers
to
samples
taken
of
sewage
sludge,
is
this
an
incorrect
reference
from
another
permit?
Federal
regulations,
at
40
CFR
122.41
require
that
all
permits
contain
the
standard
conditions
as
detailed
in
Part
8
of
the
proposed
CGP.
1034
16
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5c
423
AGA
requests
that
EPA
exempt
linear
projects
that
have
less
than
five
acres
of
soil
disturbance
from
the
requirement
to
conduct
sampling
and
analysis
after
a
storm
event.
The
CGP
does
not
require
any
users
to
sample
and
analyze
after
a
storm
event.

The
permit
does
contain
language
regarding
monitoring,
should
monitoring
be
required,
but
that
language
is
consistent
with
standard
conditions
that
are
required
in
all
NPDES
permits
pursuant
to
40
CFR
122.41.
1045
5c
424
Monitoring
and
reporting:
A
number
of
these
provisions
appear
to
apply
to
sludge
use,
not
storm
water
discharges
from
construction
sites.
Federal
regulations,
at
40
CFR
122.41
require
that
all
permits
contain
the
standard
conditions
as
detailed
in
Part
8
of
the
proposed
CGP.
1065
5c
425
The
CGP
should
include
monitoring
according
to
a
benchmark
so
that
the
permittee
knows
if
the
BMPs
are
effective,
or
whether
additional
ones
are
needed.

>
Require
weekly
sampling
of
effluent
AND
after
every
rainfall
of
.5
inches.
(
The
current
draft
only
requires
one
or
the
other.)
>
Samples
should
be
taken
at
the
perimeter
of
the
construction
site.
This
should
be
clearly
stated
in
the
CGP.
The
use
of
mixing
zones,
in
a
waterbody
well
removed
from
a
site,
is
not
appropriate.
>
In
addition
to
sampling,
the
operator's)

should
conduct
visual
monitoring
of
runoff
in
between
weekly
grab
samples.
>
A
benchmark
should
be
considered
for
inclusion
in
the
CGP.
A
benchmark
would
inform
the
permittee
if
current
BMPs
are
effective,
or
if
additional
ones
are
needed.
The
number
of
50
NTU
has
been
suggested
as
a
reasonable
number.
If
sampling
reveals
50
NTU,
the
permittee
would
be
required
to
employ
additional
BMPs,

resample
the
effluent,
and
notify
EPA
of
their
actions.

The
permittee
and
EPA
would
work
cooperatively
to
reduce
the
turbidity,
or
cease
construction
until
a
remedy
is
found.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
permit
should
include
monitoring.
The
permit
is
designed
such
that
proper
selection,
design,

installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
BMPs
should
provide
for
effective
storm
water
control.
EPA
believes
that
inspection
requirements
can
be
as
or
more
effective
than
monitoring
discharges
for
evaluating
compliance
with
permit
conditions.
It
is
relatively
easy
to
observe
whether
a
construction
site
has
sediment
or
erosion
problems
during
regular
inspections.
The
Agency
has
concerns
that
sampling
data
may
not
reflect
the
transient
nature
of
construction
activity.
Additionally,
the
Agency
has
concerns
regarding
the
possible
burdens
placed
on
industries
and
EPA
regarding
the
review
of
this
information.
1053
5c
426
Section
8.10
of
the
proposed
CGP
 
pg.
30
 

discusses
monitoring
activity,
which
is
defined
as
the
taking
of
samples
and
measurements.
This
was
not
a
part
of
the
existing
CGP
and
sampling
is
not
required
for
the
proposed
C&
D
ELG
(
67
FR
42659).
 

Construction
and
Development
Effluent
Limitation
Guideline
(
C&
D
ELG)
of
June
24,
2002
 
This
section
should
be
removed
from
the
proposed
CGP.
Federal
regulations,
at
40
CFR
122.41
require
that
all
permits
contain
the
standard
conditions
as
detailed
in
Part
8
of
the
proposed
CGP.
1058
17
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5c
427
The
NPDES
General
Permit
for
Discharges
from
Small
and
Large
Construction
Activities
(
Draft)
does
not
contain
water
quality
sampling
and
analysis
requirements.
This
raises
some
fundamental
questions
we
have
been
struggling
with:
Should
Construction
Stormwater
General
Permits
include
water
quality
sampling
and
analysis
requirements?
Is
sampling
and
analysis
required
by
section
308(
a)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act?
Section
308(
a)
does
not
require
that
all
NPDES
permits
include
sampling
and
analysis.
1069
5c
428
Monitoring
and
reporting:
A
number
of
these
provisions
appear
to
apply
to
sludge
use,
not
stormwater
discharges
from
construction
sites.
Federal
regulations,
at
40
CFR
122.41
require
that
all
permits
contain
the
standard
conditions
as
detailed
in
Appendix
G
of
the
CGP.
2002
5c
452
Consistent
with
its
emphasis
on
the
use
of
BMPs,

EPA
should
make
clear
that
it
does
not
intend
to
require
numeric
limits
to
satisfy
the
intent
of
the
CGP
and
maintain
water
quality
standards.
The
Agency
has
firmly
established
that
numeric
limits
on
stormwater
discharges
are
not
necessary
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
CWA.
In
general,
EPA
believes
that
numeric
effluent
limits
for
most
storm
water
discharges
are
not
necessary
to
be
protective
of
water
quality.
The
BMP
framework
functions
well
when
operators
carefully
and
diligently
select,

implement
and
maintain
their
suite
of
BMPs.
As
long
as
dischargers
authorized
under
general
permits
demonstrate
that
this
system
can
work,
EPA
intends
to
continue
using
this
framework.
EPA
may
consider
an
enhanced
use
of
discharge
monitoring
if
the
availability
of
numeric
benchmarks
or
threshholds
provide
important
guidance
or
impetus
for
action.

EPA
believes
that
there
are
some
situations
and/
or
discharges
for
which
numeric
effluent
limits
may
be
necessary
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
1071
5d
11
The
proposed
CGP
contains
more
requirements
than
the
existing
CGP
and
thus
compliance
will
cost
more.

 
Some
examples
of
the
cost
implications
of
this
proposal
are
given
below.
 
The
proposed
CGP
states
specifically
(
page
21)
that
not
only
are
existing
BMPs
to
be
repaired,
but
new
BMPs
are
to
be
installed
as
a
result
of
the
inspections.
This
is
clear
indication
that
the
EPA
should
have
included
additional
BMP
costs
in
its
cost
model
for
the
proposed
C&
G
ELG
and
that
industry
cost
estimates
were
justified.
See
responses
to
comments
6
and
10.
No
additional
BMP
costs
would
be
incurred
if
an
operator's
original
SWPPP
proved
adequate.
1058
18
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
19
If
finalized
as
proposed
the
draft
construction
general
permit
will
hinder
the
ability
of
operators
of
construction
sites
to
get
coverage
and
force
more
operators
into
individual
permit
status,
result
in
inappropriate
reliance
on
structural
Best
Management
Practices,
which
are
costly,
take
up
large
amounts
of
land,
and
are
counter
to
innovative
site
design
methods,
and
greatly
increase
the
cost
of
development
and
ultimately,
the
cost
of
housing.
See
response
to
comment
2.
In
addition,
most
NPDES
storm
water
permits
do
not
include
mandatory
use
of
structural
BMPs
In
the
CGP,
for
instance,
it
occurs
only
in
very
limited
circumstances­­
10
acres
and
above
in
land
disturbance.
1063
5d
56
Section
3.4.
G:
Requiring
oil
and
gas
off
site
vehicle
tracking
of
sediments
and
the
generation
of
dust
from
remote
locations
e.
g.
where
vehicles
leave
the
lease
site
road
to
a
county
dirt
or
gravel
road
is
unreasonable,
unnecessary,
costly,
and
will
provide
no
environmental
benefit.
The
fact
sheet
refers
to
these
requirements
only
when
traffic,
i.
e.
more
than
25
vehicles
per
day
are
at
the
construction
site.
To
prevent
confusion,
we
request
EPA
include
this
information
in
the
CGP.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
this
activity
is
unreasonable,

unnecessary,
costly,
and
provides
no
environmental
benefit.
EPA
has,
however,

revised
this
requirement
to
indicate
that
off­
site
vehicle
tracking
of
sediments
is
of
concern
when
it
is
tracked
onto
paved
surfaces.
Also,
see
response
to
comment
304.
1024
5d
339
NRDC
urges
EPA
to
require
active
construction
sites
to
minimize
the
disturbance
in
vegetation,
reduce
onsite
erosion,
and
off­
site
sedimentation
by
using
a
combination
of
the
techniques
outlined
by
U.
S.
EPA
in
the
fact
sheet
(
stabilization,
structural
practices,
and
storm
water
management
measures)
as
well
as
several
others
identified
in
U.
S.
EPA's
National
Management
Measures
to
Control
Nonpoint
Source
Pollution
from
Urban
Areas
and
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council's

letter/
recommendations
to
U.
S.
EPA,
"
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
the

Construction
&
Development
Industry,"
dated
January
23,
2002
(
attached).
EPA
believes
that
its
permit
appropriately
requires
operators
to
design
and
implement
measures
to
control
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.

EPA
does
not
believe
that
it
is
generally
necessary
to
specify
certain
types
of
measures
that
must
be
used
to
control
the
discharge
of
pollutants;
rather,
EPA
has
established
a
framework
by
which
operators
must
identify,
design,
install,

and
operate
appropriate
measures
to
control
discharges.
1065
19
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
340
The
language
in
the
permit
on
management
measures
needs
to
be
written
so
as
to
be
enforceable.
For
example,
erosion
and
sediment
controls
"
must"
be
designed
to
retain
sediment
on
site.
If
sediment
escapes
the
construction
site,
all
visible
traces
of
that
sediment
need
to
be
removed
within
24
hours
of
the
discovery
of
the
problem.
This
should
also
be
mandatory.
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
but
does
not
believe
that
all
situations
warrant
sediment
being
kept
on­
site
(
e.
g.,
a
central
treatment
area
used
by
multiple
operators)
since
the
permit
already
requires
BMPs
be
designed,
installed,
etc.
to
prevent
exceedances
of
water
quality
standards,
EPA
has
elected
to
delete
this
provision
from
the
permit.
1065
5d
344
There
are
several
statements
restrictions
on
discharges
of
sediment
and
other
constituents
that
are
either
infeasible
or
unreasonable
as
they
amount
to
"
zero
discharge
limits"
on
sediment
and
other
pollutants.
(
See
statements
regarding
"
preventing"
all
sediment
discharges,
requiring
complete
"
retention"
of
sediment
on­
site,
and
banning
the
contact
of
certain
pollutants
in
storm
water.')
These
statements
do
not
conform
to
the
traditions
that
govern
BMPs
on
construction
sites.
BMPs
are
intended
to
be
"
best"

management
practices,
not
"
perfect"
management
practices;
therefore,
it
is
predictable
that
some
constituents
will
leave
construction
sites
in
storm
water.
It
is
the
intention
of
water
quality
standards
t
o
ensure
that
discharges
of
such
constituents
are
not
in
such
high
amounts
to
adversely
affect
beneficial
uses.

Additionally,
we
are
not
aware
that
there
are
any
water
quality
standards
in
place
anywhere
in
the
country
that
would
absolutely
prevent
any
sediment
from
leaving
a
construction
site.
Zero
discharge
limits
are
not
expected,
not
feasible,
and
should
be
removed
from
the
EPA
does
not
believe
that
words
like
"
prevent"
and
"
retain",
as
used
in
the
CGP,

need
be
interpreted
as
a
"
zero"
discharge
requirement.
1033
20
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
345.1
The
Permit
seeks
to
mandate
certain
specific
BMPs
regardless
of
need
to
have
BMPs
reflect
the
characteristics
of
a
particular
construction
site.
For
example,
the
Permit
requires
construction
of
engineered
sediment
basins
for
all
areas
draining
10
acres
or
more;
installation
of
silt
fencing,
vegetative
buffer
strips,
or
equivalent
controls
at
down
slope
site
boundaries;
and
states
preferences
for
phased
grading
(
permit
3.14(
F)(
1)­(
2);
fact
sheet
III.
A).
Additionally,
the
Permit
requires
implementation
of
stabilization
controls
within
fourteen
days
of
the
temporary
cessation
of
construction
activity
(
permit
3.14(
E)).
Dictating
BMPs
in
such
a
manner
contradicts
the
purpose
of
BMPs,

which
is
to
act
as
flexible
tools
allow
that
site
operators
t
o
determine
based
on
site
conditions
how
to
address
particular
problems
in
a
cost­
effective
and
technologically­
effective
way.
EPA
disagrees
with
your
conclusion
that
the
CGP
has
mandated
specific
BMPs.
EPA
is
mandating
that
there
be
controls
for
a
number
of
different
types
of
situations.
Operators
decide
which
of
these
situations
are
relevant
to
their
construction
activities,
and
design
their
specific
suites
of
BMPs
accordingly.

The
CGP
does
not
require
the
construction
of
a
sediment
basin
(
Part
3.14(
F)).

It
requires
implementation
of
measure(
s)
that
will
provide
storage
of
(
or
runoff
prevention
of)
a
2­
year,
24­
hour
storm,
OR
equivalent
control
measures.
The
operator
may
use
any
measure
or
combination
of
measures
he
or
she
chooses
to
achieve
the
stated
water
quality
protection
outcomes.

You
have
properly
noted
that
the
CGP
guidance
on
phasing
construction
activity
is
a
"
preference",
it
does
not
mandate
phasing.
EPA
emphasizes
that
phased
development
and
stabilization
as
soon
as
possible
are
critical
to
minimizing
discharges
from
construction
activities.
For
that
reason
EPA
has
provided
additional
incentive
for
phasing
by
reducing
the
inspection
and
reporting
burdens
for
operators
who
maintain
as
little
bare
soil
as
possible
for
the
duration
o
EPA
believes
that
leaving
the
timing
of
stabilization
totally
open­
ended
is
inapprop
1033
5d
345.2
For
that
reason
EPA
has
provided
additional
incentive
for
phasing
by
reducing
the
inspection
and
reporting
burdens
for
operators
who
maintain
as
little
bare
soil
as
possible
for
the
duration
of
the
construction
project.
EPA
believes
that
leaving
the
timing
of
stabilization
totally
open­
ended
is
inappropriate.
Allowing
a
construction
site
to
sit
indefinitely
without
any
stabilization
is
unreasonable.
The
longer
a
site
persists
without
final
stabilization,
the
more
likely
erosion
will
occur,

and
water
quality
impacts
result.
It
is
just
common
sense
to
get
a
site
stabilized
as
soon
as
possible.
EPA
believes
that
14
days
are
more
than
adequate
to
seed
and
mulch;
install
seed
and
mulch
geotextiles
or
blankets;
hydroseed;
sod;

or
otherwise
temporarily
or
finally
stabilize
a
construction
site.
1033
5d
345.3
EPA
believes
that
BMP
requirements
of
the
CGP
are
fully
consistent
with
the
principle
of
customizing
BMPs
for
specific
sites,
and
provide
the
operator
considerable
flexibility.
EPA
reminds
the
commenter
that
the
CGP
is
an
NPDES
permit,
and
EPA
is
obligated
to
set
discharge
limits
that
will
be
protective
of
water
quality.
1033
21
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
346
With
regard
to
structural
treatment
BMPs,
the
Permit
states
that
'
structural
measures
should
be
placed
on
upland
soils
to
the
degree
attainable.'
Particularly
for
treatment
controls
that
utilize
natural
processes,
such
as
vegetative
filtration,
treatment
wetlands,
and
treatment
ponds
with
permanent
pools,
the
Permit
may
place
limits
on
the
ability
to
use
these
recognized
effective
controls.
The
Permit
should
not
place
restrictions
on
these
types
of
controls,
particularly
where
regulation
of
these
areas
may
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.
The
Permit
should
be
revised
to
encourage
the
use
of
natural
treatment
BMPs
rather
than
to
restrict
the
use
of
such
controls.
EPA
believes
that
leaving
the
timing
of
stabilization
totally
open­
ended
is
inappropriate.
Allowing
a
construction
site
to
sit
indefinitely
without
any
stabilization
is
unreasonable.
The
longer
a
site
persists
without
final
stabilization,
the
more
likely
erosion
will
occur,
and
water
quality
impacts
result.

It
is
just
common
sense
to
get
a
site
stabilized
as
soon
as
possible.
EPA
believes
that
14
days
are
more
than
adequate
to
seed
and
mulch;
install
seed
and
mulch
geotextiles
or
blankets;
hydroseed;
sod;
or
otherwise
temporarily
or
finally
stabilize
a
construction
site.
1033
5d
347
With
regard
to
the
statements
effectively
banning
discharges
(
statements
including
the
words
retain
and
prevent),
these
statements
do
not
conform
to
the
traditions
that
govern
BMPs
on
construction
sites.
For
example,
with
particular
regard
to
sediment,
there
is
no
BMP
technology
that
would
prevent
any
and
all
sediment
from
leaving
a
construction
site.

Furthermore,
we
are
not
aware
that
there
are
any
water
quality
standards
in
place
anywhere
in
the
country
that
would
absolutely
prevent
any
sediment
from
leaving
a
construction
site.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
there
is
any
language
in
the
CGP
"
prohibiting"
or
"
banning"
any
discharge
of
sediment
from
a
construction
site.
EPA
has
not
used
the
words
"
retain"
and
"
prevent"
in
that
context.
1039
5d
348
Provisions
creating
absolute
bans
on
the
discharges
of
any
and
all
solid
materials,
building
materials,
litter,

construction
debris,
construction
chemicals
are
also
infeasible.
BMPs
are
intended
to
be
'
best'
management
practices,
not
'
perfect'
management
practices;

therefore,
it
is
predictable
that
some
constituents
will
leave
construction
sites
in
storm
water.
It
is
the
intention
of
water
quality
standards
to
ensure
that
discharges
of
such
constituents
are
not
in
such
high
amounts
to
adversely
affect
beneficial
uses.
Zero
discharge
limits
are
not
expected,
not
feasible,
and
should
be
removed
from
the
Permit.
EPA
believes
that
BMP
requirements
of
the
CGP
are
fully
consistent
with
the
principle
of
customizing
BMPs
for
specific
sites,
and
provide
the
operator
considerable
flexibility.
EPA
reminds
the
commenter
that
the
CGP
is
an
NPDES
permit,
and
EPA
is
obligated
to
set
discharge
limits
that
will
be
protective
of
water
quality.
EPA
did
not
intend
to
include
automatic
zero
discharge
limits
in
the
CGP.
Depending
on
the
applicable
water
quality
standards
and
the
wasteload
allocation
in
EPA­
approved
TMDLs,
it
is
possible
that
no
discharge
of
some
pollutants
will
be
authorized
under
this
permit
in
certain
circumstances.
1039
22
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
349
BMPs
are
meant
to
be
modified
for
any
particular
site,

depending
upon
that
site's
climactic,
topographic,
and
geologic
conditions,
and
to
reflect
the
stage
of
construction
and
other
concerns.
The
Permit,
however,

seeks
to
mandate
certain
specific
BMPs
regardless
of
these
factors.
These
provisions
include
provisions
that
require:
construction
of
engineered
sediment
basins
for
all
areas
draining
10
acres
or
more;
installation
of
silt
fencing,
vegetative
buffer
strips,
or
equivalent
controls
at
down
slope
site
boundaries;
and
statements
stating
preferences
for
phased
grading.
Dictating
BMPs
in
such
a
manner
contradicts
the
purpose
of
BMPs,
which
is
to
be
flexible
tools
that
site
operators
may
use
to
address
particular
problems
presented
at
their
site.
See
response
to
comment
345.
EPA
disagrees
with
your
conclusion
that
the
CGP
has
mandated
specific
BMPs.
EPA
is
mandating
that
there
be
controls
for
a
number
of
different
types
of
situations.
Operators
decide
which
of
these
situations
are
relevant
to
their
construction
activities,
and
design
their
specific
suites
of
BMPs
accordingly.
It
is
entirely
appropriate
for
EPA
to
provide
specific
guidance
for
certain
types
of
erosion
and
sedimentation
control
situations.
After
many
years
of
conducting
construction
site
compliance
inspections,
it
is
clear
to
EPA
that
there
are
a
number
of
very
common
errors
made
in
erosion
and
sedimentation
control.
Sharing
that
information
with
construction
site
operators
should
certainly
enhance
the
abilities
of
operators
to
remain
in
compliance
with
the
permit.
Operators
are
of
course
encouraged
to
consult
with
other
erosion
and
sedimentation
experts
as
well.
EPA's
ultimate
concern
is
the
water
quality
outcome.
As
long
as
the
operator
is
successfully
and
reliably
protecting
water
quality,
and
there
are
no
imminent
threats
to
water
quality,
EPA
will
not
generally
t
1039
5d
350
When
temporarily
ceasing
construction
activity,
the
Permit
requires
that
stabilization
controls
be
implemented
within
fourteen
days 
this
provision
improperly
dictates
to
permittees
specifics
regarding
BMPs
more
properly
left
to
the
discretion
of
the
site
operators...
The
Permit
should
be
revised
to
indicate
a
more
flexible
stabilization
period,
which
recognizes
the
variability
of
site
conditions
and
allows
site
operators
to
implement
BMPs
as
the
dictates
of
the
site
require.
EPA
has
provided
3
exceptions
to
the
14
day
stabilization
requirement
to
allow
flexibility
in
extenuating
circumstances.
However,
EPA
believes
that
leaving
the
timing
of
stabilization
totally
open­
ended
is
inappropriate.
Allowing
a
construction
site
to
sit
indefinitely
without
any
stabilization
is
generally
unreasonable.
The
longer
a
site
persists
without
final
stabilization,
the
more
likely
erosion
will
occur,
and
water
quality
impacts
result.
It
is
just
common
sense
to
get
a
site
stabilized
as
soon
as
possible.
EPA
believes
that
14
days
are
more
than
adequate
to
seed,
mulch,
install
seed
and
mulch
geotextiles
or
blankets,
hydroseed,
sod,
or
otherwise
temporarily
or
finally
stabilize
a
construction
site.
1039
23
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
353
AGA
recommends
that
EPA
modify
Section
3.14,
F.
3
to
reflect
the
uniqueness
of
utility
projects.
As
written
this
section
requires
sediment
control
measures
"
for
all
down
slope
boundaries".
A
strict
interpretation
would
therefore
require
a
silt
fence
or
similar
measure
to
be
install
along
the
entire
length
of
the
project.
...
AGA
recommends
that
this
section
include
the
following
provisions.
"
For
utility
projects
that
disturb
a
narrow
corridor,
erosion
control
measures
should
be
used
in
areas
of
concentrated
flow
of
storm
water
runoff."
EPA
does
not
believe
that
Part
3.14(
F)(
3)
in
the
proposed
permit
must
be
interpreted
to
mean
that
silt
fence
would
need
to
be
installed
along
the
entire
length
of
a
utility
project.
First
of
all
this
requirement
refers
to
downslope
areas;

not
all
linear
projects
will
be
on
slopes.
Secondly,
the
requirement
is
for
some
kind
sedimentation
control,
including
a
vegetative
buffer.
If
the
utility
project
is
bordered
by
areas
that
are
well
vegetated,
as
many
are,
that
vegetation
should
serve
the
intended
purpose
in
many
cases.

EPA
does
emphasize
that
the
linear
nature
of
the
project
does
not
make
erosion
and
sedimentation
control
measures
any
less
necessary.
In
general,
EPA
believes
that
if
a
utility
company
and
their
contractors
can
access
a
site
for
utility
installation,
they
can
likewise
provide
BMP
installation.
EPA
has
seen
a
number
of
pipeline
and
other
linear
utility
projects
that
have
successfully
implemented
the
necessary
BMPs.
1045
5d
354.1
The
proposed
CGP
requires
the
discharger
to
design
and
implement
BMPs
"
that
will
be
adequate
and
sufficient
to
meet
water
quality
standards."
See
Section
1.3.
C.
4.
EPA
explains
that
this
language
is
necessary
"
because
proper
design
and
implementation
are
so
critical
to
the
success
of
BMP
effectiveness,

simply
`
installing
BMPs'
at
a
site
will
often
not
provide
adequate
water
quality
protection."
See
Fact
Sheet
at
14.
We
disagree
with
EPA's
assertion
that
dischargers
are
currently
installing
BMPs
without
regard
to
their
effectiveness
in
providing
water
quality
protection.

Moreover,
it
is
unreasonable
for
EPA
to
expect
dischargers
to
precisely
measure
the
effectiveness
of
BMPs
in
relation
to
water
quality
standards.
...
In
addition,
numerical
effluent
limits
for
sediment
are
unworkable
in
AZ
because
construction
storm
water
discharges
are
by
and
large
to
dry
ephemeral
washes,

which
are
already
sediment
laden.
...
We
believe
EPA
should
instead
allow
dischargers
the
flexibility
to
implement
BMPs
that
are
the
most
appropriate
to
effectively
minimize
pollutant
discharges.
While
not
detailed
as
part
of
this
comment
response,
State
and
EPA
NPDES
authorities
have
a
vast
amount
of
construction
site
compliance
inspection
experience
indicating
that
installation
of
BMPs
is
very
frequently
undertaken
without
consideration
for
how
they
should
function,
how
they
should
be
located,

how
they
should
be
installed,
and
how
they
must
be
maintained.
More
often
than
not,
construction
site
BMPs
are
not
adequately
functioning
to
protect
water
quality;
this
is
nearly
always
because
construction
operators
have
failed
to
give
due
consideration
to
one
or
more
of
these
important
factors.
EPA
is
bound
to
include
in
the
CGP
limitations
necessary
to
water
quality
standards".
EPA
has
not
provided
any
requirement
in
the
CGP
for
numerical
effluent
limits.
The
State
of
Arizona
is
now
an
approved
NPDES
authority,
and
will
be
developing
their
own
Construction
General
Permit;
construction
activities
in
Arizona
will
not
be
covered
under
this
CGP.
EPA
believes
that
the
CGP
provides
construction
operators
with
a
great
deal
of
flexibility
in
designing
and
implementing
a
customized
suite
of
BMPs.
1049
24
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
354.2
EPA
emphasizes
that
"
effectively
minimize"
is
not
the
standard.
EPA
believes
that
terms
like
"
effectively
minimize"
are
ambiguous
and
inconsistent
with
the
Clean
Water
Act.
The
Clean
Water
Act
requires
that
NPDES
permits
specify
discharge
requirements
that
ensure
water
quality
standards
are
met,
not
merely
approached.
1049
5d
360
Section
8.5
should
be
re­
written
to
include
the
following
concepts:
1)
require
the
proper
selection,

installation
and
maintenance
of
BMPs;
2)
require
the
installation
of
redundant
BMPs
to
protect
against
BMP
failure
or
inability
to
access
the
site
for
maintenance;
3)

if
BMPs
are
ineffective
in
eliminating
or
significantly
minimizing
pollutants
in
storm
water
discharges
from
the
site,
or
if
water
quality
standards
are
being
exceeded,
a
higher
level
of
knowledge
and
effort
must
be
used
in
selection
and
immediate
implementation
of
new
or
additional
BMPs.
Part
3
of
the
CGP
(
SWPPP
requirements)
has
a
number
of
specific
provisions
on
implementation
and
maintenance
of
BMPs.

The
current
state
of
BMP
design
technology
routinely
calls
for
a
suite
of
BMPs,

including
sedimentation
controls
to
back
up
erosion
controls.
EPA
emphasizes
that
it
is
rarely
appropriate
to
use
only
1
BMP
in
any
given
situation.
However,

EPA
does
not
generally
consider
the
use
of
multiple
controls
to
be
redundant;

each
BMP
serves
a
different
and
important
purpose.
Part
3.4
of
the
proposed
CGP
provides
directives
on
BMP
selection.

Part
3.6
of
the
proposed
CGP
specifies
the
requirement
for
maintaining,

modifying
and
implementing
additional
controls,
should
initial
BMPs
not
prove
adequate
to
protect
water
quality.
1029
5d
362.1
The
permit
should
include
appropriate
elements
of
low
impact
design
to
prevent
and
minimize
erosion:
>
Plan
the
timing
of
construction
activities
better.
Limit
land
clearing
activities
during
wet
seasons,
and
encourage
the
scheduling
of
work
during
the
dry
season.
...
During
the
wet
season,
prohibit
leaving
ground
exposed
and
unworked.
During
the
dry
season,
limit
the
number
of
days
a
site
can
be
exposed
and
unworked
to
5
days.

>...
Phase
clearing
activities
so
that
as
little
ground
as
possible
is
uncovered
at
one
time,
preferably
only
the
area
being
actively
worked.
For
areas
that
have
been
cleared
and
where
work
is
not
yet
finished,
use
temporary
coverings
(
such
as
mulch
or
temporary
vegetation)
to
prevent
erosion.
Schedule
final
stabilization
as
soon
as
work
finishes.
>
Self­
contain
the
site
as
much
as
possible.
Drain
runoff
into
native
vegetation
or
sediment
ponds
rather
than
off
the
property.
>...
Protect
highly
infiltratable
soils
and
minimize
compaction
of
soils
by
limiting
the
range
of
heavy
machinery.
Restore
the
infiltrative
capacity
of
disturbed
soils
with
compost.
EPA
has
provided
significant
guidance,
both
in
the
CGP
Fact
Sheet
and
in
separate
documents,
on
the
most
effective
ways
of
preventing
and
controlling
erosion
and
sedimentation.
This
guidance
includes
many
of
the
good
suggestions
in
this
comment,
e.
g.
timing,
phasing,
and
many
other
BMPs.
EPA
does
not
have
the
authority
to
mandate
certain
aspects
of
construction
activity,

such
as
seasonal
timing.
EPA
does
believe
that
the
CGP
has
incorporated
some
of
your
suggestions
(
control
of
flow
velocities,
rapid
temporary
and
final
stabilization).
1053
25
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
362.2
Use
compost
filter
berms
­
when
their
job
of
preventing
erosion
is
complete,
spread
the
compost
over
disturbed
soils.
Store
topsoil
that
is
scraped
off
for
later
application.
>
Maintain
existing
native
trees
and
other
vegetation
as
much
as
possible.
>
Control
the
flow
of
water
onto
and
over
the
site
(
stormwater
runon
Control
the
velocities
of
flow
on
slopes
and
in
channels
to
non­
erosive
levels.
1053
5d
363
[
referring
to
statements
in
sections
3.4(
F),
3.14(
A),

3.14(
D)]
With
regard
to
the
statements
effectively
banning
discharges
(
statements
including
the
words
"
retain"
and
"
prevent"),
these
statements
do
not
conform
to
the
traditions
that
govern
BMPs
on
construction
sites.
The
Permit
must
recognize
that
absolute
prohibitions,
such
as
the
sediment
prohibitions,
are
not
feasible
and
are,
thus,
improper
as
requirements
in
the
Permit.
Likewise,
the
provisions
creating
absolute
bans
on
the
discharges
of
any
and
all
solid
materials,
building
material,
litter,
construction
debris,
construction
chemicals
are
also
infeasible.

...
Zero
discharge
limits
are
not
expected,
not
feasible,

and
should
be
removed
from
the
Permit.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
statements
like
"
erosion
and
sediment
controls
should
be
designed
with
the
objective
to
retain
sediment
onsite"
(
the
statement
in
3.14(
A)
with
which
you
take
issue)
should
be
interpreted
to
be
an
absolute
ban
on
any
discharge.

The
Clean
Water
Act
requires
that
NPDES
permits
contain
limitations
necessary
to
meet
water
quality
standards.
Neither
that
statement,
nor
any
in
the
CGP,
are
absolute
prohibitions
on
discharges.
Nowhere
in
the
CGP
are
there
zero
discharge
effluent
limits.

There
are
definitely
restrictions
and
limitations
in
the
CGP.
Given
that
the
purpose
of
the
permit
is
to
carefully
control
polluted
discharges
to
protect
water
quality,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
entirely
approriate
to
include
restrictions
and
limitations.
For
some
small
subset
of
storm
water
discharges
it
is
appropriate
to
deny
discharge
authorization,
or
require
zero
discharge
of
certain
pollutants.

However,
EPA
believes
that
setting
permit
conditions
that
would
disallow
coverage
in
many
watershed
across
the
country
is
not
a
viable
option.
1055
5d
365
The
Permit
Improperly
Dictates
Certain
BMPs
to
Permittees.
(
Permit
Secs.
3.14(
F)(
1)
and
3.14(
F)(
2)

and
Fact
Sheet
Sec.
III.
A)
The
Permit
should
not
dictate
the
manner
of
compliance
in
such
a
way.
To
the
extent
that
Permit
provisions
do
mandate
or
have
the
appearance
of
mandating
specific
BMPs,
these
provisions
should
be
modified
to
reflect
the
discretion
of
site
operators
to
implement
the
cost­
effective
and
technologically­
effective
BMPs
for
their
sites
that
reflect
the
particular
situation
of
their
individual
projects.
The
permit
does
not
require
any
specific
BMPs,
only
the
implementation
of
a
suite
of
BMPs
that
will
be
effective
at
preventing
the
discharge
of
sedimentladen
water.
The
permittee
is
free
to
design
a
combination
of
BMPs
that
suit
his
or
her
purposes.
EPA
is
not
regulating
hydrology.

Erosion
is
caused
by
water,
moving
at
erosive
velocities,
across
bare
soil.
It
is
much
more
effective
and
inexpensive,
to
prevent
erosion
by
minimizing
the
amount
of
water
and/
or
the
velocity
of
water
traversing
bare
soils.
Since
the
rate
of
water
directly
influences
the
pollutant
content
of
the
water,
most
erosion
control
specialists
recommend
the
implementation
of
flow
control
BMPs.
EPA
is,
however,
regulating
water
quality.
1055
26
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
366
With
regard
to
structural
treatment
BMPs,
the
Permit
states
that
"
structural
measures
should
be
placed
on
upland
soils
to
the
degree
attainable"
(
Permit
Sec.

3.4(
E)
and
Fact
Sheet
Sec.
3.14(
F)).
Particularly
for
treatment
controls
that
utilize
natural
processes,
such
as
vegetative
filtration,
treatment
wetlands,
and
treatment
ponds
with
permanent
pools,
the
Permit
may
place
limits
on
the
ability
to
use
these
recognized
effective
controls.
The
Permit
should
not
place
restrictions
on
these
types
of
controls,
particularly
where
regulation
of
these
areas
may
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.
The
Permit
should
be
revised
to
encourage
the
use
of
natural
treatment
BMPs
rather
than
to
restrict
the
use
of
such
controls.
Part
3.4(
E)
of
the
proposed
permit
and
Part
3.14(
F)
of
the
proposed
Fact
Sheet
are
not
discussing
construction
activity
erosion
and
sediment
control
BMPs.

They
are
discussing
the
construction
of
post­
construction
storm
water
management
control
structures,
and
is
simply
noting
that
it
frequently
is
unwise
to
locate
these
types
of
structures
in
floodplains,
not
only
because
they
frequently
will
not
properly
function
(
e.
g.
hydric
soils;
frequent
flooding),
but
also
because
there
are
statutory
limitations
on
building
structures
in
floodplains
(
Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act;
some
State
regulations).

EPA
also
clarifies
that
it
is
generally
inappropriate
to
consider
naturally
occurring
features
such
as
wetlands
to
be
storm
water
treatment
facilities
for
concentrated
flows.
EPA
assumes
by
"
natural
treatment
BMPs"
you
mean
constructed
wetlands,
ponds
or
pools,
and
not
natural
ones.
EPA
generally
supports
the
use
of
BMPs
that
promote
the
use
of
vegetation/
bioengineering.
1055
5d
367
It
is
stated
that
"
If
existing
BMPs
need
to
be
modified
or
additional
BMPs
are
necessary
for
any
reason,

implementation
must
be
completed
before
the
next
anticipated
storm
event...''
(
p.
18,
Draft
Permit)
This
statement
should
be
modified
by
adding
"
if
practicable"
to
the
end
of
the
previous
sentence.
EPA
address
this
concern
by
indicating
in
Subpart
3.6.
B
of
the
CGP
that
"
if
implementation
before
the
next
storm
event
is
impracticable,
the
situation
must
be
documented
in
the
SWPPP
and
alternative
BMPs
must
be
implemented
as
soon
as
practicable."
1057
5d
368
Measures
to
minimize
the
generation
of
dust
should
not
be
addressed
in
SWPPPs.
...
NAHB
urges
EPA
to
delete
provision
from
the
fact
sheet.
See
item
G
on
page
22
of
the
fact
sheet.
In
many
geographic
locations
dust
generation
is
a
very
common
pathway
for
bare
soil
to
get
into
water,
and
therefore
is
a
water
quality
issue.
1057
5d
369
Hydrologic
aspects
of
storm
water
discharges
are
irrelevant
to
the
draft
permit.
While
it
is
recognized
that
land
development
unavoidably
results
in
changes
to
site
hydrology,
the
construction
general
permit
is
intended
to
control
pollutants
in
the
discharge,
not
the
volume
of
the
discharge.
As
a
result,
NAHB
urges
EPA
to
delete
section
G
on
page
27
of
the
fact
sheet.
EPA
believes
that
Part
3.13(
F)
of
the
CGP
very
specifically
addresses
a
water
quality
concern.
Erosion
is
caused
by
water,
moving
at
erosive
velocities,

across
bare
soil.
It
is
much
more
effective
and
inexpensive,
to
prevent
erosion
by
minimizing
the
amount
of
water
and/
or
the
velocity
of
water
traversing
bare
soils.
Since
the
rate
of
water
directly
influences
the
pollutant
content
of
the
water,
most
erosion
control
specialists
recommend
the
implementation
of
flow
control
BMPs.
EPA
is
regulating
water
quality.
See,
also,
response
to
comment
118.
1057
27
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
372
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans:
 
More
specifically,
the
SWPPP
should
identify
the
BMPs
and
any
other
mechanisms
by
which
discharges
from
the
site
will
be
reduced
so
as
to
comply
with
water
quality
standards
and
any
applicable
TMDL
wasteload
allocation.
Once
the
SWPPP
has
been
approved
by
the
permitting
authority,
its
terms,
including
the
BMPs
identified
in
the
SWPPP,
should
become
enforceable
terms
of
the
permit.
The
CGP
already
requires
the
SWPPP
to
identify
all
control
measures
necessary
to
comply
with
water
quality
standards
and
any
applicable
TMDL
wasteload
allocation.

EPA
clarifies
that
EPA
does
not
review
all
SWPPPs.
EPA
does
not
approve
SWPPPs.
EPA
may
review
and
comment
on
SWPPPs
as
a
component
of
compliance
activity.
EPA
may
require
updates
and
amendments
to
SWPPPs.

EPA
also
clarifies
that
the
permit
requires
adherence
to
the
SWPPP,
and
its
components.
Failure
to
include
appropriate
measures
in
the
SWPPP
does
not
provide
an
operator
a
defense
when
inadequate
BMPs
fail
to
protect
water
quality.
2002
5d
373
Management
Practices:
The
Options
for
Controlling
Pollutants
discussed
in
the
fact
sheet
accompanying
the
proposed
general
permit
(
pp.
8­
12
of
Fact
Sheet)

need
to
be
incorporated
into
the
permit
itself.
The
discussion
of
control
options
provided
in
the
fact
sheet
include
a
variety
of
options
for
minimizing
the
discharge
of
contaminated
runoff
off­
site.
The
fact
sheet
provides
a
general
discussion
of
the
types
of
controls
that
may
be
appropriate
but
does
not
specify
which
controls
are
appropriate
at
any
given
site.

EPA
expects
construction
site
operators
to
use
the
type
of
information
provided
in
the
fact
sheet
as
well
as
other
accepted
industry
references
when
designing
site­
specific
storm
water
controls.
2002
5d
374
More
specifically,
NRDC
urges
EPA
to
require
active
construction
sites
to
minimize
the
disturbance
in
vegetation,
reduce
on­
site
erosion,
and
off­
site
sedimentation
by
using
a
combination
of
the
techniques
outlined
by
U.
S.
EPA
in
the
fact
sheet
(
stabilization,
structural
practices,
and
stormwater
management
measures)
as
well
as
several
others
identified
in
U.
S.
EPA's
National
Management
Measures
to
Control
Nonpoint
Source
Pollution
from
Urban
Areas
and
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council's
letter/
recommendations
to
U.
S.
EPA,
'
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
the
Construction
&

Development
Industry,'
dated
January
23,
2002
The
"
Summary
of
Options
for
Controlling
Pollutants"
is
a
description
of
types
of
BMPs.
As
the
commenter
is
aware,
not
all
are
necessary
or
appropriate
for
every
construction
site,
and,
as
such,
EPA
declines
to
incorporate
them
into
the
CGP
as
specific
requirements.
EPA
fully
expects
all
operators
to
have
their
SWPPPs
developed
by
someone
fully
knowledgeable
with
these
options.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
these
considerations
are
very
important
in
designing
effective
erosion
and
sedimentation
control
measures,
but
it
is
important
that
permittees
be
given
a
degree
of
flexibility
in
designing
the
necessary
suite
of
BMPs.

EPA
explains
that
all
CGP
requirements
are
enforceable.

EPA
is
reluctant
to
require
that
"
all
visible
traces"
of
off­
site
sediment
be
removed,
as
often
that
type
of
removal
will
cause
additional
environmental
damage.
Moreover,
such
controls
will
not
be
necessary
at
every
site.
2002
28
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
375
The
language
in
the
permit
on
management
measures
needs
to
be
written
so
as
to
be
enforceable.
For
example,
erosion
and
sediment
controls
'
must'
be
designed
to
retain
sediment
on
site.
If
sediment
escapes
the
construction
site,
all
visible
traces
of
that
sediment
need
to
be
removed
within
24
hours
of
the
discovery
of
the
problem.
This
should
also
be
mandatory.
EPA
believes
that
the
CGP
is
an
enforceable
permit.
EPA
has
used
similar
language
and
templates
to
conduct
successful
enforcement
cases
for
permit
and
water
quality
standards
violations
many
times.

EPA
also
notes
that
meeting
water
quality
standards
does
not
necessarily
require
that
NO
sediment
can
leave
the
site.

The
CGP
allows
the
permittee
7
days
to
correct
problems
instead
of
24
hours
as
you
suggest.
2002
5d
376
AGA
recommends
that
EPA
modify
Section
3.3,
B.
3.

to
read
as
follows.
'
Estimates
of
the
total
area
expected
to
be
disturbed
by
excavation,
grading,
or
other
construction
activities,
including
dedicated
off­
site
borrow
and
fill
areas;".
...
AGA
recommends
that
the
word
dedicated
be
added
to
this
section
to
make
a
distinction
between
central
storage
or
borrow
areas
and
an
individual
storage
or
borrow
area
that
is
dedicated
to
only
one
construction
project.
EPA
understands
your
point.
However,
adding
this
additional
qualifier
would
limit
the
conditions
under
which
CGP
coverage
could
be
granted
to
a
borrow
area
based
on
a
single
NOI
submission.
By
excluding
non­
dedicated
off­
site
borrow
areas,
that
area
may
need
to
be
covered
through
a
separate
NOI
submittal.
1045
5d
379
The
SWPP,
in
addition
to
identifying
potential
sources
of
pollution
and
describing
practices
to
be
used
to
reduce
pollutants
in
discharges
from
the
site
should
identify,
in
a
map,
off­
site
paths
of
discharges,
water
bodies
within
a
half
mile
radius
that
could
be
impacted
by
discharges
and
potential
impacts
to
groundwater
from
discharges
contained
on­
site.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
request
to
require
additional
off­
site
(
and
groundwater)
locations
on
the
site
map
and
believes
that
the
information
requirements
are
appropriate.
1054
29
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
381
The
permit
should
more
clearly
recognize
effective,

nationally
recognized
stormwater
programs
and
guidance.
Section
3.10
states
that
"
the
SWPPP
must
be
consistent
with
all
applicable
federal,
State
or
Tribal,
or
local
requirements
for
soil
and
erosion
control
and
storm
water
management,
.
.
."
This
section
should
be
amended
to
also
recognize
and
require
that
the
SWPPP
be
consistent
with
applicable
stormwater
management
programs
and
guidance
developed
as
part
of
a
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
under
Section
320
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
...
Including
this
amendment
will
ensure
that
not
only
regional
requirements,
but
also
regional
programs
and
guidance
developed
under
this
fellow
EPA
program
are
recognized
and
used.
EPA
agrees
that
this
is
a
worthy
concept.
However,
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plans
developed
pursuant
to
Section
320
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
are
primarily
planning
documents.
Most
do
not
contain
recommendations
regarding
construction
site
discharges
that
are
specific
or
detailed
enough
to
be
turned
into
permit
conditions.
Plans
that
note
storm
water
discharges,
generally
recommend
to
rely
on
existing
regulatory
programs
without
recommending
additional
discharge­
related
measures.
Also,
most
of
the
17
completed
Plans
are
not
for
estuaries
in
states
where
EPA
is
the
permitting
authority.

EPA
also
notes
that,
to
the
extent
that
a
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
incorporates
and/
or
describes
applicable
Federal,
state
or
Tribal,
or
local
requirements,
the
SWPPP
will
already
be
consistent
with
such
requirements.
1053
5d
385.1
Regarding
Discharges
from
Support
Activities":
The
Arizona
Department
of
Transportation
(
ADOT)
does
not
plan
on
including
these
activities
by
the
contractor
as
part
of
ADOT's
AZDPES
permit.
These
activities
by
the
contractor
are
normally
determined
after
the
contractor
has
been
awarded
the
project
and
not
during
the
design
phase
of
the
project
so
the
SWPPP
can
be
developed
in
conjunction
with
ADOT's
construction
plans.
In
addition,
if
the
project
involves
federal
funding,
the
Federal
Highway
Administration
(
FHWA)
will
not
pay
for
the
contractor's
Best
Management
Administration
(
BPM).
ADOT
will
require
the
contractor
to
obtain
his
own
construction
or
multisector
permits
pending
the
type
of
activity.
EPA
is
unclear
what
message
is
being
conveyed
here.

The
support
activities
mentioned,
activities
commonly
associated
with
construction
projects
but
perhaps
under
the
direct
control
of
another
entity
(
e.
g.

concrete
or
asphalt
batch
plants,
borrow
areas,
etc.),
will
generally
require
permit
coverage,
if
they
will
result
in
discharges
to
waters
of
the
US.
Failure
to
cover
these
activities
under
an
NPDES
permit
is
a
violation
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.

In
the
CGP
EPA
is
providing
construction
operators
the
option
of
developing
and
implementing
1
SWPPP
and
filing
1
NOI
for
the
primary
construction
project
combined
with
the
support
activities.

The
State
of
Arizona
has
been
delegated
NPDES
authority,
and
is
expected
to
issue
a
CGP
for
Arizona.
The
State
may
decide
on
the
same
provision,
or
may
require
support
activities
to
obtain
coverage
by
filing
a
separate
NOI
and
implementing
a
separate
SWPPP.
Some
states
actually
cover
asphalt
batch
plant
operations
under
general
storm
water
permits
for
industrial
activities.
1073
30
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
5d
385.2
Regardless
of
the
NPDES
mechanism
of
coverage,
ADOT
and
it's
contractors
must
arrive
at
a
suitable
process
for
ensuring
that
these
activities
have
appropriate
storm
water
permit
coverage,
and
implement
appropriate
controls
for
the
discharge.
If
SWPPP
development,
contract
awards,
and
other
parts
of
the
project
need
to
be
re­
arranged
in
order
to
fulfill
these
provisions,
then
ADOT
will
need
to
do
so.
It
is
fine
for
ADOT
to
require
the
contractor
to
obtain
permit
coverage,
and
fulfill
the
requirements
of
the
permit.
Some
states
do
this.
Some
states
do
not.
Federal
transportation
funding
will
pay
for
the
design
and
implementation
of
storm
water
BMPs
in
highway
construction
and
maintenance
projects.
ADOT
may
need
to
find
the
best
mechanism
to
take
advantage
of
this.
1073
31
1
Coverage
of
General
Permit
xxxxxx
1a
Applicability
Greg
1b
Common
Plan
of
Development
Wendy
1c
Oil
and
Gas
Activities
Greg
1d
Mining
Activities
Greg
1e
Oversight
Authority
Greg
1f
Non­
Storm
Water
Requirements
Jack
1g
Routine
Maintenance
Jack
1h
Date
of
Coverage
Greg
2
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
Bryan
3
Historic
Properties
Greg
4
Waivers
Jack
5
SWPPPs
xxxxxx
5a
Inspector
Qualifications
Jack
5b
Inspections,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements
x
5c
Monitoring
Jenny
5d
BMPs
and
Control
Measures
Jenny
6
NOI
Jack
7
Definitions
Jack
x
8
Inconsistencies/
Corrections
x
9
Site
Stabilization
and
Revegetation
xxxxxx
9a
Specific
for
Oil
and
Gas
Industry
9b
Arid
and
Semi­
arid
Locations
x
9c
Alternative
Requirements
x
10
Environmental
Impacts
Jenny
11
Burden
xxxxxx
11a
Paperwork
11b
Proportionate
to
Small/
Large
Activities
11c
Costs/
Delays
11d
Overlapping
Regulatory
Requirements
12
Water
Quality
Standards,
TMDLs,
and
Impaired
Waters
xxxxxx
12a
Enforceable
Language
Jenny
12b
Pollutants
Jenny
12c
Non­
attainment
Determination
Jenny
12d
TMDL
Implementation
Jenny
12e
Guidance
Jenny
13
Public
Notice
of
Draft
Permit
Jack