Opposition Brief — Hughey v. JMS Development Corp.

Supreme Court brief1996

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ne ate

Supreme Court, U.S, mo

?) ae. Me te ae

wh OCT 17 1996

No. 96-420

ent Hee *

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1996

TERENCE D. HUGHEY,

Petitioner,

vs.

JMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The Eleventh Circuit Court Of Appeals

RESPONSE TO PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Racpx L. Taytor, III*

Rosert JACKSON WILSON

Wess, TANNER & PowEsLL

F. 2. Box 27

Lawrenceville, Georgia 30246

(770) 963-3423

Counsel for Respondent

*Counsel of Record

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether this Court should review the Eleventh Cir-

cuit’s finding that JMS was not in violation of the

Clean Water Act’s “no discharge without an NPDES

permit” standard with regard to the natural occur-

rence of stormwater discharge where the facts of the

case established (1) compliance with the standard was

factually impossible; (2) no NPDES permit covering

stormwater discharges existed when JMS conducted

its development activity; (3) JMS was in good faith

compliance with local pollution control requirements

that substantially mirrored the proposed NPDES dis-

charge standards and (4) the discharges were mini-

mal.

Whether this Court should review the Eleventh Cir-

cuit’s alternative holding that the trial court’s injunc-

tion barring JMS from discharging stormwater from

its residential subdivision “if such discharge would

be in violation of the Clean Water Act” failed to meet

the requirements of Federal Rule of Procedure 65(d)

and failed to contain an operative command as

required under prior decisions of this Court.

LIST OF ALL PARTIES

Terence D. Hughey

JMS Development Corporation

ili

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

og Og 3 oo 6 rr i

pe Gs BP iy. ety eS a iv

UENCE SOY BROT CPN nooo cus ee scccvanpece 1

ee es dee bub eb eee. 1

REASONS TO REJECT THE PETITION............. 7

I. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S APPLICATION

OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT TO THE LIM-

ITED FACTS OF THIS CASE IS IN HAR-

MONY WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE

OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND PRIOR

DECISIONS OF THIS COURT............... 7

Il. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION

DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH AUTHORITY

FROM OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF

MEE DEES RLS AN 6 a eos 5 na bce uss Qar Pixon vasa 10

Il. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY

RULED THAT THE TRIAL COURT’S

INJUNCTION VIOLATED RULE 65(d) ...... 13

MEME SAN ua b.6s sees bert baneh oe biee sce ceatins 14

APPENDIX

1. November 20, 1992 Order. .............0000 App. 1

2. February 25, 1994 Judgment................. App. 2

3. Affidavit of David M. Word, Chief of the Water

Protection Branch of the Georgia EPD....... App. 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992)........ sea ga 9

Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Eastman

Kodak Co., 12 F3d 353 (2nd Cir. 1994), cert.

denied, _.. U.S. __, 115 S.Ct. 62 (1994) ....9, 10, 12

Chemical Manufacturer’s Association v. NRDC, 470

CFD. TO Tey kak ex ccs apices knocked ohana 9

Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v.

Southview Farm, et al., 34 F.3d 114 (2nd Cir.

1994), cert. denied, ___ ~*U.S. __, 115 S.Ct. 1793

te | RR Re eet rere aa Se ee E ETS COREE CET EO EE 10

EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S.

BO SEIN 5 an. 5 ae bake CORRAL & AOL SO EVER D AR Knes 8

Epstein Family Partnership v. K Mart Corp., 13 F.3d

Pe Se Ge BOD ie os Saka FA RRA 14

Hughey v. JMS Development Corp., 78 F.3d 1523

(11th Cir. 1996), reh’g denied, 89 F.3d 857 (11th

Cis. Pitan 17, . 29FG) ccs cits caeetkciivan eas 5, 8, 13, 14

Longshoremen’s Assn. v. Maine Trade Assn., 389 U.S.

GE CEB oo v0 Sads exw ieee tke ebecue ous ba peeweehinee 14

Menzel v. County Utilities Corp., 712 F.2d 91 (4th

oR | Breer errr erry eer re res ey 10, 12

National Wildlife Federation v. Gorusch, 693 F.2d 156

CCans Sells ROAR. 0:ckk sce bat cdeds} ree aches bees 12

Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 966 F.2d

8, Be ei eeeyey terrier eT peer ere 3

Northwest Environmental Advocates v. Portland, 56

ROG. STO TOG Cae Bees we ss 1s AC. 12

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 565 F.2d 895

(Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835 (1974)........ 14

Perry v. Commerce Loan Co., 383 U.S. 392 (1966). ...... 8

Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 (5th

Cir. 1996), petition for cert. filed, 64 U.S.L.W.

eee ele BORE TO TOUR? ina ccn eens veces 10, 11, 12

U.S. v. Frezzo Brothers, Inc., et al., 602 F.2d 1123

OU ROE 5s Gaaooee cals ice ee 10

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982)....7, 9

STATUTES

a Ren RINT 5 25% bnkbet viaceaeaon cet ereah een 3

Oe Alas DAPMMUPM ED 655 is aketn coeds cb iek hermes 3

ee Aims RPM os 30 ox ch ch Cru koKee Reker 3

Ga. Code Ann. §12-7-1, ef 900... 06. 6sciscccediksesecs 7

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Ped. Bathe. OF: Ciwtl Pree. Goes 6 ks iccctae vines 13, 14

eS 8 RS kA oe ne erin tas: 4

OF CAE TEE OP, oa as eee 4

Oe: Ride REM NA Ska d Gerdes Skt Esa icine eel arndet 3

SO BME CO'8 tO pe grees

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Statement of the Facts

The Respondent in this case is a closely held Georgia

corporation known as JMS Development Corporation

(“JMS”). In 1991, JMS purchased a 19.2-acre tract of land

in Gwinnett County, Georgia, for development as a resi-

dential subdivision. (R2-16-24).

Petitioner Terence D. Hughey is a Gwinnett County

resident who opposed the development of the subdivi-

sion from its inception. In January 1992, Petitioner filed

suit against JMS and Gwinnett County in the Superior

Court of Gwinnett County. (R12-84, 85, 86). Although

Petitioner did not live in close proximity to the proposed

subdivision, Petitioner alleged that the subdivision

would result in increased traffic and noise and sought to

overturn JMS’ zoning and to enjoin the development.

(R12-86). The Superior Court dismissed Petitioner’s com-

plaint.

JMS sought and obtained all permits available from

and required by Gwinnett County for the development of

the property as a residential subdivision. (R2-16-25). As

part of this process, JMS submitted a comprehensive soil

and erosion control plan which was approved by Gwin-

nett County. On March 31, 1992, JMS obtained a Gwinnett

County development permit which met the land-disturb-

ing activity and stormwater discharge requirements for

Gwinnett County! and the State of Georgia. (R2-16-25).

? Gwinnett County has the authority to administer

Georgia’s Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act in

Gwinnett County.

During late spring and early summer, JMS cleared,

graded and grubbed less than five acres of its property

for the construction of streets, gutters and storm sewers.

(R2-16-25). The company installed state-of-the-art erosion

and sedimentation control structures, including silt

fences, check dams, grassing, sloping and a sediment

retention basin, installed at the direction of Gwinnett

County and State of Georgia officials. (R2-16-25). JMS

finished the subdivision by August and received

approval from Gwinnett County to record its final plat on

August 6, 1992. (R2-16-25). The plat subdivided the prop-

erty into 50 lots and named the subdivision Rivercliff

Place. With the recording of the plat, JMS dedicated its

streets, gutters and storm sewer system to Gwinnett

County, and Gwinnett County accepted the dedication.

(R2-16-25). As of August 6, 1992, JMS had ceased all land-

disturbing activity and was only in the business of selling

lots within the subdivision.

From JMS’ property, a small, unnamed stream

approximately four feet wide originates and trickles off

the property, under a road, and across property belonging

to third parties. The stream intersects the Yellow River

approximately 840 feet from the JMS property. (R11-46).

At the point of confluence of the stream and the Yellow

River, the Yellow River is approximately 75 feet wide.

(R12-146, 147). Petitioner resides on property located

some 2,800 feet downstream from the intersection of the

stream with the Yellow River. (R11-46).

On August 28, 1992, Petitioner filed suit against JMS

in the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-

trict of Georgia under the citizen’s suit provisions of the

Clean Water Act, seeking injunctive relief, penalties and

attorney’s fees. In his complaint, Petitioner alleged that

JMS was in violation of the Clean Water Act for discharg-

ing stormwater into waters of the United States without

an NPDES permit.

As of March 31, 1992, the date on which JMS was

issued a development permit from Gwinnett County,

there was no NPDES permit available in Georgia for

stormwater discharge associated with development activ-

ity. Since June 28, 1974, Georgia’s Environmental Protec-

tion Division (“EPD”) has administered the NPDES

permitting program in the State of Georgia with authority

from the EPA. The EPD’s approach to the permitting

scheme for stormwater discharges was to follow the lead

of the EPA.? As of March 31, 1992, EPA had not promul-

gated a permit for stormwater discharges associated with

industrial activity.* In the interim, EPD regulated

im ee

2 The Affidavit of David M. Word, Chief of the Water

Protection Branch of the Georgia Environmental Protection

Division is reprinted in the Appendix, A. 3 (R2-16-30).

3 Stormwater discharges did not come under the Clean

Water Act until 1987, when Congress adopted a complex

“phased-in approach”, establishing various classifications of

discharges and timetaes by which NPDES permits were to be

promulgated. 33 U.S.C. §1342(p). The Act established a

moratorium until October 1, 1992, on the permit requirement for

most stormwater permits. Stormwater discharges associated

with industrial activity, however, were not subject to the

moratorium. 33 U.S.C. §1342(p)(2)(B). EPA extended the

statutory deadline for the promulgation of permits for

discharges associated with industrial activity to October 1, 1992.

57 E.R. 11,394. On June 4, 1992, the Ninth Circuit struck down

the extension. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 966 F.2d

1292 (9th Cir. 1992). On October 31, 1992, the moratorium was

extended to October 1, 1994. 33 U.S.C. §1342(p)(1).

Fl aR ear eet ne RTE eRe

stormwater discharge from construction activity through

Georgia’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, which

was administered in Gwinnett County through the issu-

ance of development permits. (A. 6; see fn.1). On Septem-

ber 3, 1992, EPA issued a general permit for discharges

associated with industrial activity, which required appli-

cants to submit their requests by October 1, 1992. Geor-

gia’s EPD published on September 23, 1992, a notice of

intent to issue two general permits, one of which would

apply to construction activities. On September 28, 1992,

JMS filed a notice of intent with the EPD to come under

the permit for construction activity.

In a separate action, Petitioner appealed the general

permit applicable to construction activity. The effect of

his appeal under Georgia administrative regulations was

to stay the issuance of the permit. Ga. R. & Reg.

391-1-2-.10. Petitioner eventually won the appeal on tech-

nical procedural grounds.*

Federal regulations define stormwater discharge associated

with industrial activity to include “construction activity

including clearing, grading and excavation activities except:

operations that result in the disturbance of less than five acres of

total land area which are not part of a larger common plan of

development or sale”. 40 C.F.R. 122.26 (b)(14)(x). JMS argued on

appeal that Congress did not intend its construction activity to

constitute industrial activity for purposes of the stormwater

discharge permitting program. This issue was not addressed by

the Eleventh Circuit in light of its finding that JMS was not in

violation of the Clean Water Act.

* Petitioner has challenged each NPDES permit applicable

to construction activity proposed by the EPD. As of the filing

date of the Petition for Certiorari, there was still no permit

available in Georgia.

In his petition, Petitioner grossly misstates the evi-

dence before the trial court. Petitioner claims that JMS’

discharges “converted a formerly clear running stream

_. into a dead stream” and “choked downstream wet-

lands.” (Pet. for Cert., p. 7, 8). Petitioner asserts that he

noticed the discharge of silt into the stream on his “daily

walks” in his subdivision. (Pet. for Cert., p. 9). To the

contrary, Petitioner admitted that he does not live in or

near the subdivision (R12-31, 35); he does not live adja-

cent to or near the stream (R12-31, 35); he had no knowl-

edge of the condition of the stream prior to his efforts to

bring a Clean Water Act case against JMS (R10-115); the

stream is on private property and is not accessible to the

general public (R11-46); he has never made any use of the

stream (R10-106; R12-31).5 Further, there was no evidence

in the record, and no finding by the trial court, that

wetlands had been affected or altered by any alleged

discharge from the subdivision.

Petitioner further asserts that JMS’ discharges “pol-

luted the Yellow River” and “flowed through Petitioner's

property.” (Pet. for Cert., p. 8). Again, the record is

devoid of any such proof. Petitioner failed to introduce

any scientific evidence at trial that discharge from the

JMS subdivision actually made its way down the

unnamed stream to the Yellow River. JMS introduced into

evidence water samples of the Yellow River during rain-

fall events which established that turbidity levels were

5 JMS objected to Petitioner’s standing in the trial court and

on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit declined to address the issue, in

light of its holding that JMS was not in violation of the Act. 78

F.3d at 1533, fn. 13.

lower downstream from the confluence with the stream

than above. (Exh. 51). JMS also introduced expert testi-

mony that discharges from the four-foot wide stream

would not increase the turbidity of the Yellow River.

(R12-145, 146). Petitioner’s expert made no scientific

investigation into the effect of discharges from the stream

into the Yellow River. (R12-78).

Petitioner also misrepresents the course of the pro-

ceedings before the District Court. Aftez the Court issued

the Temporary Restraining Order on August 31, 1992, the

Court extended the restraining order on September 11,

1992, with the consent of JMS. The Court subsequently

issued a preliminary injunction on November 9, 1992.

Petitioner fails to mention that on November 20, 1992, the

Court stayed its November 9, 1992 order indefinitely.

(A.1) The District Court did not reinstate injunctive relief

until its order dated February 24, 1994 (and accompany-

ing judgment dated February 25, 1994), in which the

Court enjoined JMS from discharging stormwater .. . “if

such discharge would be in violation of the Clean Water

Act.” (A.2) It was this final injunctive relief order which

was overturned by the Eleventh Circuit’s alternative

holding.

REASONS TO REJECT THE PETITION

I. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S APPLICATION OF

THE CLEAN WATER ACT TO THE LIMITED

FACTS OF THIS CASE IS IN HARMONY WITH

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CLEAN

WATER ACT AND PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS

COURT.

This Court noted in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456

U.S. 305 (1982), “the integrity of the Nation's waters, ...,

not the permit process, is the purpose of the FWPCA.”

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in the case at bar mirrors

this Court’s interpretation of the NPDES permitting

scheme as applied to the natural occurrence of stormwa-

ter discharge. The unique facts presented in the case

below resulted in a common sense decision by the Elev-

enth Circuit, narrowly confined to the specific facts of the

case. Thus, this Court should deny the Petition for Cer-

tiorari.

The Petitioner sought to hold JMS liable under the

Clean Water Act for discharging stormwater from its

residential subdivision without an NPDES permit even

though the undisputed facts established that (1) Georgia's

Environmental Protection Division (EPD) had not pro-

mulgated an NPDES permit as of March of 1992, when

JMS began its development of the Rivercliff Place subdi-

vision; (2) as of March of 1992, JMS had acquired a

development permit from Gwinnett County, Georgia,

which authorized JMS to commence its development

activity and which was issued in compliance with Geor-

gia’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, Ga. Code

Ann. §12-7-1 et seq.; (3) the development permit mirrored

the requirements of the general NPDES permit issued by

the EPD in September of 1992 and authorized the dis-

charge of stormwater; (4) it was factually impossible to

stop the discharge of every particle of stormwater; and

(5) the alleged discharges were de minimis.

The Eleventh Circuit limited its opinion to the unique

facts presented in this case. The Court’s common sense

approach began with reliance upon authority of this

Court that where the literal or plain meaning of a statute

produces absurd or unreasonable results contrary to the

purpose of the statute, the Supreme Court has followed

the purpose of the statute. 78 F.3d at 1529, citing Perry v.

Commerce Loan Co., 383 U.S. 392 (1966). The Eleventh

Circuit correctly determined that Petitioner’s strict inter-

pretation of the Clean Water Act was unreasonable given

the limited facts of this case. The Court distinguished this

case from one involving a manufacturing facility “that

could abate the discharge of pollutants by ceasing opera-

tions” and focused on the fact that due to the natural

occurrence of rainfall within the subdivision, it was factu-

ally impossible to prevent the discharge of every particle

of stormwater during a rainfall event. Id. at 1530. Further,

this was not a situation where the aileged violator’s con-

duct was not being regulated; Respondent’s discharges

were regulated by the development permit issued by

Gwinnett County, Georgia, which was substantially simi-

lar to the NPDES permit promulgated by the EPD.

The Eleventh Circuit’s approach is consistent with

this Court’s interpretation of the purpose of the 1972

Amendment to the Clean Water Act. In EPA v. State Water

Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200 (1976), this Court

noted that the NPDES permit “defines, and facilitates

gna

compliance with the enforcement of, a preponderance of

a discharger’s obligations under the Amendments”, id. at

205 (holding that federal facilities were not subject to

state NPDES permit requirements). In Chemical Manufac-

turer’s Association v. NRDC, 470 U.S. 116 (1985), this Court

rejected a literal interpretation of §301 (1) of the Act and

held that the EPA was not prohibited by §301 from issu-

ing “fundamentally different factor” variances from toxic

pollutant effluent limitations. The Court deferred to the

EPA’s interpretation of the Act, in part, on the Court's

observation that the dispute was essentially over the

means used by the EPA to achieve the goals of the Act.

470 U.S. at 131. In Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91

(1992), this Court rejected the Tenth Circuit’s interpreta-

tion of the Clean Water Act restricting the issuance of an

NPDES permit where the receiving body of water was in

violation of water quality standards, finding that the

Clean Water Act vested in the EPA and the states’ broad

authority to develop long range, area-wide programs to

alleviate and eliminate existing pollution. And, in Wein-

berger v. Romero-Barcelo, supra, this Court rejected a literal

interpretation of the injunctive relief provisions of the

Clean Water Act, noting that “this is a statute in which

Congress envisioned, rather than curtailed, the exercise

of discretion.” 456 U.S. at 316.

This Court has denied certiorari to review an appel-

late court’s refusal to apply a no discharge standard for

discharges not specifically authorized by an NPDES per-

mit. In Atlantic States Legal Foundation Inc. v. Eastman

Kodak Company, 12 F.3d 353 (2nd Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

___ US. __, 115 S.Ct. 62 (1994), the Second Circuit held

that the discharge of pollutants not listed in a permit

issued by the state regulatory agency was not unlawful

under the Clean Water Act. This Court declined to review

the decision.

Like the Second Circuit’s decision in Atlantic States,

the decision at bar represents a well-reasoned opinion,

applying the requirements of the Clean Water Act to the

narrow facts of this case. Therefore, this Court should

deny the Petition for Certiorari.

Il. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION DOES

NOT CONFLICT WITH AUTHORITY FROM

OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL.

Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, no other United

States Court of Appeals has found a defendant liable

under the Clean Water Act for discharges of stormwater

from a residential subdivision where, despite the good

faith efforts of the defendant, it was impossible to pre-

vent the discharge in its entirety, and where the defen-

dant possessed a permit issued in compliance with state

laws which mirrored the proposed but not yet available

NPDES permit. The Petitioner relies upon cases where

the alleged discharges could have been stopped by some

affirmative act of the defendant: Sierra Club v. Cedar Point

Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 1996), petition for cert. filed,

64 U.S.L.W. 3780 (U.S. May 10, 1996) (discharges of waste-

water from oil and gas production); Concerned Area Resi-

dents for the Environment v. Southview Farm, et al., 34 F.3d

114 (2nd Cir. 1994) (discharges of liquid manure from

dairy farming); U.S. v. Frezzo Brothers, Inc., et al., 602 F.2d

1123 (1979) (criminal prosecution of discharges of liquid

manure from mushroom farming); and Menzel v. County

pci

Re ee ee

Utilities Corp., 712 F.2d 91 (1983) (discharge of treated \

sewage). No circuit authority is cited by Petitioner

involving the natural occurrence of stormwater discharge

during a rainfall event.

Because the Eleventh Circuit limited its decision to

the unique facts of this case, Petitioner's assertion that

this decision is inconsistent with other circuits is unper-

suasive. For instance, this case is incomparable with the

facts at issue in Petitioner’s main case, Sierra Club v. Cedar

Point Oil Co., supra. In Cedar Point Oil, the Sierra Club

challenged an oil driller’s discharges of produced water

directly into the Galveston Bay without an NPDES per-

mit. Unlike the facts in the case at bar, in Cedar Point Oil,

the defendant could have installed a system which could

have eliminated the discharge. The Court noted that

defendant had not acted in good faith in attempting to

comply with the Clean Water Act. 73 F.3d at 574. Here,

the record established that JMS installed a state-of-the-art

soil and erosion control system which complied with

state requirements for soil and erosion control; yet due to

the natural occurrence of rainfall, it was impossible to

prevent the discharge of stormwater in its entirety.

Further, Cedar Point’s discharges of oil and gas in its

produced water were unpermitted and unregulated by

any governmental agency. There was no NPDES permit

available from the EPA for defendant's discharges, and

the general permit which was eventually issued by the

EPA banned the discharge of produced water. 73 F.3d at

554. In the case at bar, prior to commencing its develop-

ment activity, JMS applied for and received a develop-

ment permit from Gwinnett County which met the

requirements of Georgia’s Erosion and Sedimentation

Control Act. Under this permit, Respondent was autho-

rized to discharge stormwater. Unlike the facts presented

in Cedar Point Oil, the development permit possessed by

JMS mirrored the requirements of the general permit for

construction activity proposed by EPD.

Moreover, other Circuit Courts of Appeal have recog-

nized the complexity of the NPDES permitting scheme

and have refused to blindly apply the no discharge stan-

dard to produce absurd results. The Fourth Circuit, in

Menzel v. County Utilities Corp., 712 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1983)

refused to impose liability against the defendant for dis-

charging sewage without a permit, where the NPDES

permit was stayed by the state court. 712 F.2d at 95. The

District of Columbia Circuit reversed the trial court in

National Wildlife Federation v. Gorusch, 693 F.2d 156 (D.C.

Cir. 1982) and rejected the assertion that the EPA has a

nondiscretionary duty to require dam operators to apply

for NPDES permits for dam-induced water quality

changes. Significantly, the D.C. Circuit cited to excerpts

of the legislative history which suggested that Congress

had doubts about the enforceability of the no-discharge

standard. 693 F.2d at 179. The Second Circuit, in Atlantic

States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d

353 (2nd Cir. 1994), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 115 S.Ct. 62

(1994), held that the discharge of pollutants not listed in a

valid permit was not unlawful, and noted that the appel-

lant’s absolute no discharge interpretation of the permit-

ting scheme “stands that scheme on its head.” 12 F.3d at

357. The Ninth Circuit, in Northwest Environmental Advo-

cates v. Portland, 56 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995) ruled that the

i a CS Sait

City of Portland was not in violation of the Act by dis-

charging raw sewage from outfall points which were not

specifically set forth in the City’s permit.

The Eleventh Circuit’s common sense approach is

consistent with the approach taken by other circuits on

related issues. The decision follows the purposes of the

Act and avoids the patently unreasonable result pro-

motec by the Defendant. Therefore, the Petition for Cer-

tiorari should be denied.

Ill. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY RULED

THAT THE TRIAL COURT’S INJUNCTION VIO-

LATED RULE 65(d).

In his final argument for certiorari, Petitioner attacks

the Eleventh Circuit’s alternative holding that the injunc-

tive relief order entered by the trial court was unenforce-

able due to its failure to identify with sufficient

specificity the acts that JMS was required to do or refrain

from doing.® Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the

injunctive relief order entered by the trial court did not

simply direct JMS to cease discharging stormwater with-

out a permit. The order specifically stated:

Defendant shall not discharge stormwater into

the waters of the United States from its develop-

ment property in Gwinnett County, Georgia,

known as Rivercliff Place if such discharge

6 As noted by Judge Carnes in his concurrence, the Court's

ruling on the injunction is dicta since the Court found that

Petitioner was not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 78 F.3d at

1533.

would be in violation of the Clean Water Act.

(emphasis added).

The Eleventh Circuit properly recognized that the injunc-

tion violated the standards of Rule 65(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to contain an “opera-

tive command capable of enforcement” as required by

this Court. Longshoremen’s Assn. v. Maine Trade Assn., 389

U.S. 64 (1967). The Court held that the irjunction failed to

satisfy two primary functions of Rule 65, namely, (1) to

inform parties of what they are called upon to do or

refrain from doing by requiring trial courts to identify

exactly what conduct is proscribed; and (2) to be specific

in their terms and to describe in detail the acts to be

restrained in order to assist appellate tribunals in assess-

ing the correctness of the judgment below. 78 F.3d at 1531.

Injunctions which merely require a party to “obey the

law” violate the primary functions of Rule 65(d) and fail

to give the restrained party fair notice of what conduct

will risk contempt. Epstein Family Partnership v. K Mart

Corp., 13 F.3d 762 (3rd Cir. 1994); Payne v. Travenol Labora-

tories, Inc., 565 F. 2d 895, 897-898 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

439 U.S. 835 (1974). The order failed to satisfy these well-

established principles of law and therefore the Eleventh

Circuit properly vacated the injunction.

CONCLUSION

The Eleventh Circuit’s common sense approach to the

limited and unique facts of this case is not contrary to this

Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act, nor incon-

sistent with rulings of other Circuit Courts of Appeal.

The Court refused Petitioner’s efforts to hold JMS to an

unjust and impossible standard. Therefore, this Court

should deny the Petition for Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

RavpH L. Tayvor, Ill

Georgia Bar No. 701025

Rosert JACKSON WILSON

Georgia Bar No. 768990

Attorneys for Respondent

Wess, TANNER & POWELL

P. O. Box 27

Lawrenceville, Georgia 30246

(770) 963-3423

App. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

TERENCE D. HUGHEY,

Plaintiff,

)

) 1:92-cv-2051-RHH

VS. )

)

JMS DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

ORDER

(Filed Nov. 24, 1992)

In light of recently enacted federal legislation, this

Court hereby STAYS its Preliminary Injunction Order of

November 9, 1992, pending further order of the Court.

So ORDERED this 20 day of NOVEMBER, 1992.

/s/ Robert H. Hall

ROBERT H. HALL

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE

App. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

Terence D. Hughey

Plaintiff, - CIVIL ACTION NO.

Vs. 1:92-cv-2051-RHH

JMS Development Corporation

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

This action having come before the court, Honorable

Robert H. Hall, United States District Judge, for consider-

ation of plaintiff's motion for consideration of plaintiff's

motion for entry of final judgment and assessment of civil

penalties and attorney’s fees, and the Court having

granted the motion, it is

Ordered and Adjudged that the defendant JMS

Development Corporation pay to the plaintiff Terence D.

Hughey $8,500 in civil penalties and reimburse plaintiff

for his costs of litigation and attorney's fees reasonably

incurred in litigating his claims.

It is further Ordered and Adjudged that the defen-

dant JMS Development Corporation shall not discharge

stormwater into the waters of the United States from its

development property in Gwinette County, Georgia,

known as Rivercliff Place if such discharge would be in

violation of the Clean Water Act.

App. 3

Dated at Atlanta, Georgia, this 25th day of February,

1994.

Luther D. Themas, Clerk

By: /s/ Pat Austin

Deputy Clerk

Prepared, Filed and Entered

in the Clerk’s Office

February 25, 1994

Luther D. Thomas, Clerk

By: /s/ Pat Austin

Deputy Clerk

App. 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

TERENCE D. HUGHEY,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.

= 1:92-CV-2051-RHH

)

JMS DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,

)

Defendant.

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID M. WORD

(Filed Oct. 15, 1992)

PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE THE UNDER-

SIGNED ATTESTING OFFICER, duly authorized to

administer oaths, DAVID M. WORD, who, being duly

sworn on oath states that he has personal knowledge of

the facts set forth in this affidavit and that he makes this

affidavit for use by defendant, JMS Development Corpo-

ration, and for all of the purposes authorized by law.

The affiant states on oath:

1) 1, David M. Word, am an employee of the Envi-

ronmental Protection Division, Department of Natural

Resources, State of Georgia. I am the Chief of the Water

Protection Branch, Environmental Protection Division

(“EPD”). In this capacity, I serve as the senior manage-

ment official for water quality issues at EPD. I have

served in this capacity since April, 1990.

App. 5

2) In my capacity as Chief of the Water Protection

Branch, I am familiar with EPD’s water quality programs,

which include permit issuing authority under delegation

from U.S. EPA for National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-

tion System (“NPDES”) permits in Georgia. EDD has been

delegated full authority from the U.S. EPA to implement

and enforce this permitting program designed to protect

water quality in Georgia. This authority has been vested

in EPD since 1974.

3) In order to carry out the agency’s responsibilities

with regard to storm water runoff, EPD prepared a storm

water permitting strategy, which was revised in January,

1992. A true and correct copy of the strategy adopted by

EPD is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated

herein by reference.

4) Inorder to implement the storm water permitting

strategy referenced above, and to meet EPD’s respon-

sibilities under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, a

draft general permit for authorization to discharge under

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,

Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction

Activity, was prepared by EPD. A true and correct of the

draft General Permit No. GAR100000 is attached hereto

and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “B”.

5) A Public Notice was prepared by this agency

concerning the draft general permit and published on

September 23, 1992. A true and correct copy of this Public

Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.

6) In order to protect the water quality of the State

of Georgia, this agency also enforces the Erosion and

Sedimentation Control Act of 1975. This Act requires

App. 6

permits for certain land-disturbing activities. The permit

issuing authority under this Act has been delegated to

Gwinnett County, Georgia. The erosion and sedimenta-

tion control requirements under this Act substantially

meet the requirements proposed by EPD for storm water

permitting of discharges associated with construction

activity. At the present time, and until the above-refer-

enced general permit becomes effective, EPD regulates

storm water discharge from construction activities, such

as those engaged in by JMS Development Corporation at

Rivercliff Place, through the Erosion and Sedimentation

Control Act of 1975.

7) Although the Georgia Water Quality Control Act

and its regulations make reference to any discharge of

pollutants into waters of the State of Georgia, no NPDES

program for issuing NPDES permits has been in place for

storm water runoff from construction activities. Because

such discharge has been covered by the Soil Erosion and

Sedimentation Act of 1975, it has not been a priority of

EPD to create such a program. Because of recent changes

in federal requirements, EPD has initiated a strategy for

permitting storm water runoff and promulgated a pro-

posed general permit to regulate these activities under

the NPDES program in Georgia.

8) The NPDES program administered by EPD does

not prevent the discharge of all pollutants, but attempts

to regulate the concentration of such pollutants. There-

fore, the general NPDES permit proposed for storm water

runoff from construction activities will not prevent the

discharge of all pollutants, but will require permitees to

App. 7

perform certain erosion and sedimentation control prac-

tices, currently required under authority of the Erosion

and Sedimentation Control Act of 1975.

9) In Georgia, no individual NPDES storm water

discharge permits have been required by EPD or issued

by EPD to date. Rather, EPD has undertaken a permitting

strategy for storm water runoff which intends to cover all

such discharges under a general NPDES permit. The gen-

eral permit will cover land disturbing activities affecting

5 acres or more of land. This is consistent with the federal

requirements.

10) EPD has received applications for individual

storm water discharge permits, but the agency is not

reviewing these applications until a general rule becomes

effective. EPD has received a notice of intent to comply

with the general permit from JMS Development Corpora-

tion for its subdivision in Gwinnett County, Georgia. No

action will be taken on this notice of intent until a general

permit becomes effective. Therefore, at this time no fur-

ther action is required or necessary on the part of JMS

Development Corporation to be authorized to discharge

storm water into waters of the State of Georgia from the

subject property.

11) In addition to a notice of intent, the general

permitting requirements will also require a storm water

pollution prevention plan to be prepared and imple-

mented by permittees. If the permittee has submitted an

erosion and sedimentation control plan, as required by

the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of

1975, and such plan has been approved by the appropri-

ate soil and conservation district or an issuing authority

App. 8

such as Gwinnett County, then the permittee is exempt

from preparing a separate storm water pollution preven-

tion plan.

Further, affiant saith not.

/s/ D.M. Word

David M. Word, Affiant

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED

BEFORE ME THIS 8th DAY

OF October, 1992.

/s/ Yolanda Fanning

Notary Public

My Commission Expires:

Notary Public, DeKalb County, Georgia

My Commission Expires Dec. 28, 1993

GL Splice el Can a tae Raia tl ci ON AALS AB 1 ED

(5 RPO PN A OLE EPCRA LED Se CORES

‘

Il.

App. 9

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

05 Butler Street, S.E., East Floyd Tower,

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner

Harold F. Reheis, Director

Environmental Protection Division

STORM WATER PERMITTING STRATEGY

STATE OF GEORGIA

Revised January 1992

INTRODUCTION

Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987

amended Section 402 of the Clean Water Act,

requiring the Environmental Protection Agency

to establish regulations setting forth NPDES

permit application requirements for storm water

discharges. Storm water is defined as storm

water runoff, surface runoff, street wash waters

related to street cleaning or maintenance, infil-

tration (other than infiltration contaminated by

seepage from sanitary sewers Or by other dis-

charges), and drainage related storm events or

snow melt. Georgia has been delegated the

NPDES permit program and is therefore respon-

sible for implementation of a program to control

storm water discharges.

OBJECTIVES

1. To develop a realistic and meaningful storm

water management program that can be

implemented satisfactorily with the

resources available to EPD.

Il.

App. 10

To comply with the requirements of the Fed-

eral Clean Water Act of 1987 through a gen-

eral permitting program for applicable

municipal and industrial categories.

To provide guidance and instructions that

will assist municipalities and industries to

comply with the permit requirements.

To issue general permits for:

Large municipalities by November 16, 1993

Medium municipalities by May 18, 1994

Industrial subcategories on a priority basis

starting in late 1992, with the construction

activity subcategory being first priority.

Municipal and Industrial Water Pollution

Control Plants which fall into one of the

eleven subcategories of industrial activity

will be required to apply for the appropriate

general permit for storm water.

APPLICABILITY

NPDES permit applications for storm water dis-

charges are required for the following:

Discharges associated with industrial activ-

ity.

Discharges from a municipal separate storm

sewer system serving a population of

250,000 or more.

Discharges from a municipal separate storm

sewer system serving a population of

100,000 or more but less than 250,000.

Discharges for which the State determines

that the storm water discharge contributes

App. 11

to a violation of a Water Quality Standard or

is a significant contributor of pollutants.

IV. STATEMENT OF STRATEGY

A. MUNICIPAL

The State of Georgia will require all applicable

municipalities to comply with permit applica-

tion requirements for their municipal separate

storm sewers. Municipal separate storm sewers

are defined as any conveyance OF system of

conveyances owned or operated by a local gov-

ernment entity and used for collecting and con-

veying storm water, which ‘is not part of a

Publicly Owned Treatment Works. The Clean

Water Act mandates that permits for discharges

from municipal separate storm sewers shall

require controls to reduce the maximum dis-

charge of pollutants to the maximum extent

practical (MEP). The State of Georgia will issue

area-wide permits for municipal storm water

discharges.

EPD has determined that the following geo-

graphic areas contain significant storm water

discharges that contribute to violations of Water

Quality Standards and therefore must comply

with the permit application requirements:

LARGE MUNICIPAL

1. Atlanta Metro

Cobb County

DeKalb County

Clayton County

Fulton County

Gwinnett County

App. 12

MEDIUM MUNICIPAL

2. Augusta

Richmond County

3. Macon

Bibb County

4. Savannah

Chatham County

5. Columbus

Muscogee County

B. INDUSTRIAL

Storm water discharge associated with indus-

trial activity is defined as the discharge from

any conveyance which is used for collecting and

conveying storm water, and which is directly

related to manufacturing, processing or mate-

rials storage areas. Georgia intends to issue a

general permit for each of the following sub-

categories of industrial activity:

1. Facilities subject to federal effluent limita-

tion guidelines for storm water.

2. Manufacturing Facilities classified as Stan-

dard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 24

(except 2434), 26 (except 265 and 267), 28

(except 283 and 285), 29, 311, 32 (except 323),

33, 3441, and 373 (see attachment for list of

SIC codes).

3. Mining and Oil and Gas Operations classi-

fied as SIC codes 10-14 including active and

10.

11.

App. 13

inactive mining and oil and gas operations

with contaminated storm water discharges,

except for areas of coal mining operations

which have been reclaimed and the perfor-

mance bond has been released by the appro-

priate SMCRA authority, or non-coal mining

operations which have been released from

applicable State or Federal reclamation

requirements after December 17, 1990.

Hazardous waste treatment, storage Or dis-

posal facilities.

Landfills, land application sites that receive

industrial wastes.

Recycling facilities, including facilities clas-

sified as SIC codes 5015 and 5093.

Steam electric power generating facilities,

including coal handling sites.

Transportation facilities classified as SIC

codes 40, 41, 42 (except 4221-25), 43, 44, 45,

and 5171 which have vehicle maintenance

shops, equipment cleaning operations, or

airport deicing operations.

Treatment works treating domestic sewage

or sewage sludge with a design flow of 1.0

MGD or greater, or which are required to

have an approved pretreatment program

under 40 CFR Part 403.

Construction activity (except for distur-

bances of less than five acres of total land

area which are not part of a larger common

plan of development or sale).

Other specific facilities where materials are

exposed to storm water classified under SIC

App. 14

codes 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434, 25, 265, 267, 27,

283, 285, 30, 31 (except 311), 323, 34 (except

3441), 35, 36, 37 (except 373), 38, 39, and

4221-25.

The requirement to obtain a storm water dis-

charge permit does not apply to the following:

Discharges of storm water runoff from areas

separate from the facility’s industrial activ-

ities, such as office buildings and parking

lots, provided the storm water does not

commingle with storm water from the facil-

ity’s manufacturing, processing or materials

storage areas.

Discharges of uncontaminated storm water

runoff from mining, oil, and gas operations.

Discharges of agricultural storm water run-

off or return flows from irrigated agricul-

ture.

Discharges of storm water runoff from other

facilities or activities specifically excluded

from the NPDES program under 40 CFR Part

122.

V. PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

MUNICIPAL

EPD will use a two part permit application.

Part I of the permit application is intended

to provide an adequate basis for identifying

sources of pollutants to the municipal storm

sewer system, to preliminarily identify dis-

charges, and to formulate a strategy for

characterizing the discharges. This will

include:

;

{

;

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

App. 15

general information regarding the per-

mit applicant,

a description of the existing legal

authority of the applicant,

source identification information

including historic use of ordinances or

other controls,

information on characteristics of the

nature of system discharges including

any available data (at a minimum), this

would include a “field screen” analysis,

a description of existing structural and

nonstructural controls to reduce the

discharge of pollutants.

Part II of the application is designed to sup-

plement information provided in Part I. This

will include:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

a demonstration that the legal authority

of the permit applicant satisfied regula-

tory criteria,

identify all major outfalls,

quantitative data from screening analy-

ses for detecting illicit discharges and

illegal dumping (This includes sam-

pling and monitoring for at least 20

pollutants at 5-10 representative major

outfalls),

management program to control the

discharge of pollutants,

an assessment of the performance of

proposed controls,

App. 16

(f) a financial analysis estimating the cost

to implement the proposed manage-

ment programs,

(g) a description of the rules and respon-

sibilities of coapplicants.

INDUSTRIAL

EPD will issue general permits for the

industrial subcategories and will not require

individual permit applications to be submit-

ted.

Individual permit applicants and group per-

mit applications will be accepted by EPD but

will not be processed.

Since general permits may not be issued by

October 1, 1992, applicants for subcategories

may file, in lieu of an application, a request

to be considered under a general permit.

The request should include the following

information:

(a) Name,

(b) Address and location of discharge(s) if

different from address,

Public Notices will be issued by EPD prior

to issuance of a general permit in accor-

dance with the applicable regulations.

To apply for coverage under a general per-

mit once it has been issued, the applicant

shall submit a Notice to Intent (NOI) in lieu

of a formal permit application. The exact

content of the NOI will be specified in the

sen! al ae Se lta

LOO cP

- ree ee

VI.

App. 17

general permit. At a minimum, the NOI

shall include the following information:

(a) Name, address, industrial subcategory

and SIC code,

(b) Location of the discharge(s),

(d) Any existing quantitative data perti-

nent to the storm water discharge.

6. For industrial and municipal facilities which

currently have an NPDES permit or an LAS

permit for non-storm water discharges,

those facilities meeting the definition of

industrial activity will be required to apply

for coverage under the general permit for

storm water applicable to such facilities.

This shall also apply to facilities with exis-

ting NPDES permits which currently

address storm water through a standard per-

mit boilerplate condition. EPD will notify

such facilities when the general permits

have been issued.

TIMETABLE

Schedule for implementation of the Storm Water

Permitting Strategy

EVENT DEADLINE DATE

Obtain general permitting

authority from EPA January 28, 1991

Finalize the Storm Water

Permitting Strategy February 8, 1991

VIL.

App. 18

Transmit a copy of the strat-

egy to EPA

Inform the public of the

Storm Water Strategy

through a series of meeting

and news releases starting

Deadline for Part I applica-

tion — large municipal sys-

tems

Identify and prioritize

industrial subcategory per-

mits to be issued

Deadline for Part | applica-

tion — medium municipal

systems

Issue industrial general per-

mits on a priority basis by

subcategory beginning

Deadline for Part II applica-

tion — large municipal sys-

tems

Deadline for Part II applica-

tion — medium municipal

systems

Issue area-wide permits for

large municipal systems

Issue area-wide permits for

medium municipal systems

CONCLUSION

February 28, 1991

March 1991

November 18, 1991

March 1992

May 18, 1992

Late 1992

November 16, 1992

May 17, 1993

November 16, 1993

May 17, 1994

The implementation of the storm water permit-

ting program is consistent with the Georgia

App. 19

Clean Water Strategy adopted by EPD in April

1988. In addition, managing storm water runoff

is critical to addressing a large number of

stream segments in the State that are partially

supporting their designated use.

Through this general permitting approach, best

SIC

CODE

— eeeeeEEeEe

Attachment

SIC CODES

management practices for the control of storm

water runoff can become a legally enforceable

tool. This effort in conjunction with education of

the public will assist the State in the continuing

effort to protect water quality.

SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED

IN STORM WATER REGULATIONS

DESCRIPTION

Metal Mining

Coal Mining

Oil and Gas Extraction

Mining/ quarrying

nonmetallic minerals (except

fuels)

Food and kindred products

Tobacco products

Textile mill products

Apparel and other finished

products made from fabrics

and similar materials

Penne a a

SUBCATEGORY

2434

265

267

283

285

311

323

3441

App. 20

Lumber and wood products

(except furniture)

Wood kitchen cabinets

Furniture and fixtures

Paper and allied products

Paperboard containers and

boxes

Converted paper/

paperboard products

Printing, publishing, and

allied industries

Chemical and allied

products

Drugs

Paints, varnishes,

lacquers,

enamels, etc.

Petroleum refining and

related industries

Rubber and miscellaneous

plastic products

Leather and leather

products

Leather tanning and

finishing

Stone, clay, glass, concrete

products

Glass products made of

purchased glass

Primary Metal industries

Fabricated metal products,

machinery and

transportation equipment

Fabricated structural

metal

Industrial and commercial

machinery and computer

equipment

373

4221

4222

4225

5015

5093

5171

App. 21

Electronic and other

electrical equipment

components

Transportation equipment

Ship and boat building

and repairing

Measuring, analyzing,

controlling instruments;

photographic, medical,

optical goods; watches and

clocks

Miscellaneous

manufacturing

Railroad transportation

Local/suburban transit and

major interurban highway

passenger transportation

Motor freight

transportation / warehousing

Farm product warehous-

ing /storage

Refrigerated warehous-

ing/ storage

General warehousing /

storage

U. S. Postal Service

Water transportation

Transportation by air

Wholesale Trade — Durable

Goods

Used motor vehicle parts

Scrap and waste metals

Wholesale Trade — Non-

Durable Goods

Petroleum bulk stations

and terminals

App. 22

General Permit

No. GARO00000

State of Georgia

Department of Natural Resources

Environmental Protection Division

Authorization To Discharge Under The National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water

Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity

In compliance with the provisions of the Georgia Water

Quality Control Act (Georgia Laws 1964, p. 416, as

amended), hereinafter called the “State Act,” the Federal

Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.),

hereinafter called the “Clean Water Act,” and the Rules

and Regulations promulgated to each of these Acts, new

and existing storm water point sources within the State of

Georgia that are required to have a permit, upon submit-

tal of a Notice of Intent, are authorized to discharge

storm water associated with industrial activity to the

waters of the State of Georgia in the accordance with the

limitations, monitoring requirements and others condi-

tions set forth in Parts I through VIII hereof.

This permit shall become effective on

This permit and the authorization to discharge shall

expire at midnight, October 1, 1997.

Signed this __. day of __.

[SEAL]

Director,

Environmental Protection

Division

tn a

ae tn Seth wt te Eat clr las tal ne

Sw OE ati a Soa

tare Co ae a MEA AE ne As a PM ae

ete aachgr 8h Pe

App. 23

NPDES GENERAL PERMIT

for”

STORM WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED

WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

PART I. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT

A. Permit Area.

The permit covers all discharges of storm water associ-

ated with industrial activity from point sources to the

waters of the State of Georgia.

B. Eligibility.

This permit may cover all new and existing point

source discharges of storm water associated with

industrial activity to waters of the State of Georgia,

except for storm water discharges identified under

paragraph I.B.3.

This permit may authorize storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity that are mixed with

storm water discharges associated with industrial

activity from construction activities provided that the

storm water discharge from the construction activity

is in compliance with the terms, including applicable

NOI or application requirements, of a different

NPDES general permit or individual permit authoriz-

ing such discharges.

Limitations on coverage. The following storm water

discharges associated with industrial activity are not

authorized by this permit:

a. storm water discharges associated with indus-

trial activity that are mixed with sources of

non-storm water other than non-storm water

discharges that are:

(i) in compliance with a different NPDES permit;

(ii) identified by and in compliance with Part

III.A.2 (authorized non-storm water discharges)

of this permit.

App. 24

b. storm water discharges associated with indus-

trial activity which are subject to an existing

effluent limitation guideline addressing storm

water (or a combination of storm water and

process water);

é storm water discharges associated with indus-

trial activity that are subject to an existing

NPDES individual or general permit, except for

individual NPDES permits which authorize

storm water discharges under Part II.B.16 of the

individual permit. Such discharges may be

authorized under this permit after an existing

permit expires provided the existing permit did

not establish numeric limitations for such dis-

charges;

d. storm water discharges associated with indus-

trial activity from construction sites, except

storm water discharges from portions of a con-

struction site that can be classified as an indus-

trial activity under 40 CFR 122.26(b) (14) (i)

through (ix) or (xi) (including storm water dis-

charges from mobile asphalt plant, and mobile

concrete plants).

e. storm water discharges associated with indus-

trial activity that the Director has determined to

be or may reasonably be expected to be contrib-

uting to a violation of a water quality standard;

and

f. storm water discharges associated with indus~

trial activity from inactive mining, inactive

landfills, or inactive oil and gas operations

occurring on Federal lands where an operator

_ cannot be identified.

Storm water discharges associated with industrial

activity which are authorized by this permit may be

combined with other sources of storm water which

are not classified as associated with industrial activity

App. 25

pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b) (14), so long as the

cischarger is in compliance with this permit.

Authorization.

Dischargers of storm water associated with industrial

activity must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) in

accordance with the requirements of Part II of this

permit, using a NOI form provided by the Director

(or photocopy thereof), to be authorized to discharge

under this general permit.

Unless notified by the Director to the contrary,

owners or operators who submit such notification are

authorized to discharge storm water associated with

industrial activity under the terms and conditions of

this permit 48 hours after the date that the NOI is

postmarked.

The Director may deny coverage under this permit

and require submittal of an application for an indi-

vidual NPDES permit based on a review of the NOI

or other information.

PART II. NOTICE OF INTENT REQUIREMENTS

A. Deadlines for Notification.

Except as provided in paragraphs II.A.4 (new opera-

tor) and II.A.5 (late NOIs), individuals who intend to

obtain coverage for an existing storm water discharge

associated with industrial activity under this general

permit shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOJ) in accor-

dance with the requirements of this part thirty (30)

days after the issuance of this permit;

Except as provided in paragraphs II.A.3 (oil and gas

operations), II.A.4 (mew operator), and II.A.5 (late

NOJ) operators of facilities which begin industrial

activity after issuance of this permit shall submit a

NOI in accordance with the requirements of this part

at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the

industrial activity at the facility;

App. 26

Operators of oil and gas exploration, production, pro-

cessing, or treatment operations or transmission facil-

ities, that are not required to submit a permit

application as of October 1, 1992 in accordance with

40 CFR 122.26(c) (1) (iii), but that after October 1,1992

have a discharge of a reportable quantity of oil or a

hazardous substance for which notification is

required pursuant to either Georgia’s Oil or Hazard-

ous Material Spills or Releases Act (O.C.G.A.

§ 12-14-2), 40 CFR 110.6, 40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR

302.6, must submit a NOI in accordance with the

requirements of Part II.C of this permit within 14

calendar days of the first knowledge of such release.

Where the Operator of a facility with a storm water

discharge associated with industrial activity which is

covered by this permit changes, the new operator of

the facility must submit an NOI in accordance with

the requirements of this part at least 48 hours prior to

the change.

An operator of a storm water discharge associated

with industrial activity is not precluded from submit-

ting an NOI in accordance with the requirements of

this part after the dates provided in Parts II.A.1, 2, or

3 (above) of the permit. In such instances, the Georgia

Environmental Protection Division (EPD) may bring

an enforcement action for failure to submit an NOI in

a timely manner or for any unauthorized discharges

of storm water associated with industrial activity that

have occurred on or after the dates specified in Part

Il.A.1, 2, or 3 (above).

Contents of Notice of Intent. This Notice of Intent shall

be signed in accordance with Part VII.G (signatory

requirements) of this permit and shall include the

following information:

Name, mailing address, county, and location of the

facility for which the notification is submitted. Where

a mailing address for the site is not available, the

location can be described in narrative terms or in

3 ee a

oe nw See ree TS Swe

App. 27

terms of the latitude and longitude of the approxi-

mate center of the facility to the nearest 15 seconds

where the facility is located.

Up to four 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) codes that best represent the principal products

‘or activities provided by the facility;

The operator’s name, address, telephone number, and

status as Federal, State, private, public or other entity;

The permit number of additional NPDES permits for

any discharges (including non-storm water dis-

charges) from the site that are currently authorized by

an NPDES permit;

The name of the receiving water(s), or if the discharge

is through a municipal separate storm sewer, the

name of the municipal operator of the storm sewer

and the receiving water(s) for the discharge through

the municipal separate storm sewer;

An indication of whether the owner or operator has

existing quantitative data describing the concentra-

tion cf pollutants in storm water discharges (existing

data should not be included as part of the NOI); and

An indication as to whether the facility has previ-

ously participated in the group application process.

Where a facility has participated in a group applica-

tion, the number EPA assigned to the group applica-

tion shall be supplied.

Where to Submit. Facilities which discharge storm

water associated with industrial activity must use a

NOI form provided by the EPD Director (or photo-

copy thereof). Forms are available by calling (404)

656-4887. NOIs must be signed in accordance with

Part VII.G (signatory requirements) of this permit.

NOIs are to be submitted to the EPD Director at the

following address:

App. 28

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Industrial Wastewater Program

Floyd Towers East, Room 1070

205 Butler Street, S.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

D. Additional Notification. Facilities which discharge

storm water associated with industrial activity

through large or medium municipal separate storm

sewer systems (systems located in an incorporated

...city with a population of 100,000 or more, or in a

county identified as having a large or medium sys-

tem) shall, in addition to filing copies of the Notice of

Intent in accordance with paragraph ITC, also submit

signed copies of the Notice of Intent to the operator

of the municipal separate storm sewer through which

they discharge in accordance with the deadlines in

Part II.A (deadlines for notification) of this permit.

E. Renotification. Upon issuance of a new general

permit for some or all of the discharges of storm

water covered by this permit, the permittee is

required to notify the Director of their intent to be

covered by the new general permit. The permittee

must submit a new NOI in accordance with the noti-

fication requirements of the new general permit.

Part III. SPECIAL CONDITIONS

A. Prohibition on Non-storm Water Discharges.

1. Except as provided in paragraph III.A.2 (below), all

discharges covered by this permit shall be composed

entirely of storm water.

2. a. Except as provided in paragraph III.A.2.b

(below), discharges of material other than storm

App. 29

water must be in compliance with a NPDES per-

mit (other than this permit) issued for the dis-

charge.

b. The following non-storm water discharges may

be authorized by this permit provided the non-

storm water component of the discharge is in

compliance with the measures and controls for

non-storm water discharges portion of the storm

water pollution prevention plan: discharges from

fire fighting activities; fire hydrant flushings;

potable water sources including waterline flush-

ings; irrigation drainage; lawn watering; routine

external building washdown which does not use

detergents or other compounds; pavement wash-

waters where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous

materials have not occurred (unless all spilled

material has been removed) and where deter-

gents are not used; air conditioning condensate;

springs; uncontaminated ground water; and

foundation or footing drains where flows are not

contaminated with process materials.

Releases in Excess of Reportable Quantities.

The discharge of hazardous substances or oil in the

storm water discharge(s) from a facility shall be pre-

vented or minimized in accordance with the applica-

ble storm water pollution prevention plan for the

facility. This permit does not relieve the permittee of

the reporting requirements of Georgia’s Oil or Haz-

ardous Material Spills or Releases Act (O.C.G.A.

§12-14-2), 40 CFR part 117 and 40 CFR part 302.

Where a release containing a hazardous substance in

an amount equal to or in excess of a reporting quan-

tity established under either Georgia’s Oil or Hazard-

ous Material Spills or Releases Act (O.C.G.A.

§12-14-2), 40 CFR 117 or 40 CFR 302, occurs during a

24 hour period:

App. 30

The discharger is required to notify EPD at (404)

656-4813 or 800-241-4113 and the National

Response Center (NRC) at 800-424-8802 in accor-

dance with the requirements of Georgia’s Oil or

Hazardous Material Spills or Releases Act

(O.C.G.A. §12-14-2), 40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302

as soon as he or she has knowledge of the dis-

charge;

The permittee shall submit within 14 calendar

days of knowledge of the release a written

description of: the release (including the type

and estimate of the amount of material released),

the date that such release occurred, the circum-

stances leading to the release, and steps to be

taken in accordance with paragraph III.B.1.c

(below) of this permit to EPD at the address

provided in Part ILC of this permit and to Geor-

gia’s Emergency Response Team at:

Emergency Response Team

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Floyd Towers East, Room 1166

205 Butler St., S.E.

Atlanta, GA 30334; and

The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

required under Part IV (Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plans) of this permit must be mod-

ified within 14 calendar days of knowledge of the

release to: provide a description of the release,

the circumstances leading to the release, and the

date of the release. In addition, the plan must be

reviewed to identify measures to prevent the

reoccurrence of such releases and to respond to

such releases, and the plan must be modified

where appropriate.

App. 31

2. Spills. This permit does not authorize the discharge

of hazardous substances or oil resulting from an on-

site spill.

Part IV. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION

PLANS

A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be

developed for each facility covered by this permit.

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans shall be pre-

pared in accordance with good engineering practices.

The plan shall identify potential sources of pollution

which may reasonably be expected to affect the qual-

ity of storm water discharges associated with indus-

trial activity from the facility. In addition, the plan

shall describe and ensure the implementation of

practices which are to be used to reduce the pollu-

tants in storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity at the facility and to assure com-

pliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.

Facilities must implement the provisions of the Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan required under this

part as a condition of this permit.

A. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and Compliance.

1. Except as provided in paragraphs IV.A.2 and IV.A.3

(oil and gas operations), the plan for a storm water

discharge associated with industrial activity that is

existing prior to December 31, 1992:

a. shall be prepared on or before April 1, 1993 (and

updated as appropriate);

b. shall provide for implementation and compliance

with the terms of the plan on or before October 1,

1993;

2. The plan for any facility where industrial activity

commences after January 1, 1993 shall be prepared,

App. 32

and except as provided elsewhere in this permit,

shall provide for compliance with the terms of the

plan and this permit on or before the date 60 calen-

dar days after the commencement of industrial activ-

ity (and updated as appropriate);

The plan for storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from an oil and gas exploration,

production, processing, or treatment operation or

transmission facility that is not required to submit a

permit application on or before October 1, 1992 in

accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii), but after

October 1, 1992 has a discharge of a reportable quan-

tity of oil or a hazardous substance for which noti-

fication is required pursuant to either Georgia’s Oil

or Hazardous Material Spills or Releases Act

(O.C.G.A. §12-14-2), 40 CFR 110.6, 40 CFR 117.21 or

40 CFR 302.6, shall be prepared and except as pro-

vided elsewhere in this permit, shall provide for

compliance with the terms of the plan and this per-

mit on or before the date 60 calendar days after the

first knowledge of such release (and updated as

appropriate); and

Upon a showing of good cause, the Director may

establish a later date in writing for preparing and

compliance with a plan for a storm water discharge

associated with industrial activity that submits a NOI

in accordance with Part II.A.2 (deadlines for notifica-

tion — new dischargers) of this permit (and updated

as appropriate).

Signature and Plan Review.

The plan shall be signed in accordance with Part

VILG (signatory requirements), and be retained on-

site at the facility which generates the storm water

discharge in accordance with Part VI.D (retention of

records) of this permit.

-_-s

Pe a em re

oe er onl ae a ee

ie et Me Sk BPI RSE OH, CA i ss 8

App. 33

The permittee shall make plans available upon

request to the Director, or authorized representative,

and in the case of a storm water discharge associated

with industrial activity which discharges through a

municipal separate storm sewer system, to the opera-

tor of the municipal system.

The Director or authorized representative, may

notify the permittee at any time that the plan does

not meet one or more of the minimum requirements

of this Part. Within thirty (30) days of such notifica-

tion from the Director, (or as otherwise provided by

the Director), or authorized representative, the per-

mittee shall make the required changes to the plan

and shall submit to the Director a written certifica-

tion that the requested changes have been made.

Keeping Plans Current. The permittee shall amend

the plan whenever there is a change in design, con-

struction, operation, or maintenance, which has a

significant effect on the potential for the discharge of

pollutants to the waters of the State of Georgia or if

the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan proves to

be ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimiz-

ing pollutants from sources identified in this plan

(description of potential pollutant sources), or in oth-

erwise achieving the general objectives of controlling

pollutants in storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity. Amendments to the plan may be

reviewed by EPD in the same manner as Part IV.B

(above).

Contents of Plan. The plan shall be prepared in

accordance with the requirements, guidelines, and

recommendations in the U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency documents titled STORM WATER POL-

LUTION PREVENTION PLANS FOR INDUSTRIAL

ACTIVITIES and NPDES BEST MANAGEMENT

App. 34

PRACTICES DOCUMENT (JUNE 1981). Both docu-

ments are available from the U.S. Government Print-

ing Office or the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. The plan shall include, at a minimum, the

following items:

Pollution prevention team. Each plan shall identify

a specific individual or individuals within the facility

organization as members of a storm water Pollution

Prevention Team that are responsible for developing

the plan and assisting the facility or plant manager in

its implementation, maintenance, and revision. The

plan shall clearly identify the responsibilities of each

team member. The activities and responsibilities of

the team shall address all aspects of the facility’s

plan.

Description of potential pollutant sources. Each

plan shall provide a description of potential sources

which may reasonably be expected to add significant

amounts of pollutants to storm water discharges or

which may result in the discharge of pollutants dur-

ing dry weather from separate storm sewers draining

the facility. Each plan shall identity all activities and

significant materials which may potentially be signif-

icant pollutant sources. Each plan shall include, at a

minimum:

a. Drainage.

(1) A site map indicating an outline of the portions

of the drainage area of each storm water outfall

that are within the facility boundaries, each

existing structural control measure to reduce

pollutants in storm water runoff, surface water

bodies, locations where significant materials are

exposed to precipitation, locations where major

spills or leaks identified under Part IV.D.2.c

(spills and leaks) of this permit have occurred,

and the locations of the following activities

(2)

App. 35

where such activities are exposed to precipita-

tion: fueling stations, vehicle and equipment

maintenance and/or cleaning areas, loading/

unloading areas, locations used for the treat-

ment, storage or disposal of wastes, liquid stor-

age tanks, processing areas and storage areas.

For each area of the facility that generates storm

water discharges associated with industrial

activity with a reasonable potential for contain-

ing significant amounts of pollutants, a predic-

tion of the direction of flow, and an

identification of the types of pollutants which

are likely to be present in storm water dis-

charges associated with industrial activity. Fac-

tors to consider include the toxicity of chemical;

quantity of chemicals used, produced or dis-

charged; the likelihood of contact with storm

water; and history of significant leaks or spills

of toxic or hazardous pollutants. Flows with a

significant potential for causing erosion shall be

identified.

Inventory of exposed materials. An inventory of

the types of materials handled at the site that

potentially may be exposed to precipitation.

Such inventory shall include a narrative descrip-

tion of significant materials that have been han-

dled, treated, stored or disposed in a manner to

allow exposure to storm water between the time

of three years prior to the date of the issuance of

this permit and the present; method and loca-

tion of on-site storage or disposal; materials

management practices employed to minimize

contact of materials with storm water runoff

between the time of three years prior to the date

of the issuance of this permit and the present;

App. 36

the location and a description of existing struc-

tural and non-structural control measures to

reduce pollutants in storm water runoff; and a

description of any treatment the storm water

receives.

c. Spills and leaks. A list of significant spills and

significant leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants

that occurred at areas that are exposed to pre-

cipitation or that otherwise drain to a storm

water conveyance at the facility after the date of

three years prior to the effective date of this

permit. Such list shall be updated as appropriate

during the term of the permit.

d. Sampling data. A summary of existing dis-

charge sampling data describing pollutants in

storm water discharges from the facility, includ-

ing a summary of sampling data collected dur-

ing the term of this permit.

e. Risk identification and summary of potential pollu-

tant sources. A narrative description of the

potential pollutant sources at the following

areas: loading and unloading operations; out-

door storage activities; outdoor manufacturing

or processing activities; significant dust or par-

ticulate generating processes; and on-site waste

disposal practices. The description shall speci-

fically list any significant potential source of

pollutants at the site and for each potential

source, any pollutant or pollutant parameter

(e.g. biochemical oxygen demand, etc.) of con-

cerns shall be identified.

3. Measures and controls. Each facility covered by this

permit shall develop a description of storm water

management controls appropriate for the facility, and

implement such controls. The appropriateness and

priorities of controls in a plan shall reflect identified

pene ere ee

Pere Te! ee

es Te ee “a

ee ee ae ee ee en

App. 37

potential sources of pollutants at the facility. The

description of storm water management controls

shall address the following minimum components,

including a schedule for implementing such controls:

Good housekeeping. Good housekeeping

requires the maintenance of areas which may

contribute pollutants to storm waters discharges

in a clean, orderly manner.

Preventive maintenance. A preventive mainte-

nance program shall involve timely inspection

and maintenance of storm water management

devices (e.g. cleaning oil/water separators,

catch basins) as well as inspecting and testing

facility equipment and systems to uncover con-

ditions that could cause breakdowns or failures

resulting in discharges of pollutants to surface

waters, and ensuring appropriate maintenance

of such equipment and systems.

Spill prevention and response procedures. Areas

where potential spills which can contribute pol-

lutants to storm water discharges can occur, and

their accompanying drainage points shall be

identified clearly in the plan. Where appropri-

ate, specifying material handling procedures,

storage requirements, and use of equipment

such as diversion valves in the plan should be

considered. Procedures for cleaning up spills

shall be identified in the plan and made avail-

able to the appropriate personnel. The necessary

equipment to implement a clean up should be

available to personnel.

Inspections. In addition to or as part of the

comprehensive site evaluation required under

Part IV.4 (comprehensive site compliance eval-

uation) of this permit, qualified facility person-

nel shall be identified to inspect designated

(1)

App. 38

equipment and areas of the facility at appropri-

ate intervals specified in the plan. A set of track-

ing or followup procedures shall be used to

ensure that appropriate actions are taken in

response to the inspections. Records of inspec-

tions shall be maintained.

Employee training. Employee training programs

shall inform personnel responsible for imple-

menting activities identified in the plan or oth-

erwise responsible for storm water management

at ail levels of responsibility of the components

and goals of the plan. Training should address

topics such as spill response, good housekeep-

ing and material management practices. The

plan shall identify periodic dates for such train-

ing.

Recordkeeping and internal reporting pro-

cedures. A description of incidents such as

spills, or other discharges, along with other

information describing the quality and quantity

of storm water discharges shall be included in

the plan required under this part. Inspections

and maintenance activities shall be documented

and records of such activities shall be incorpo-

rated into the plan.

Non-storm water discharges.

The plan shall include a certification that the

discharge has been tested or evaluated for the

presence of non-storm water discharges. The

certification shall include the identification of

potential significant sources of non-storm water

at the site, a description of the results of any test

and/or evaluation for the presence of non-storm

water discharges, the evaluation criteria or test-

ing method used, the date of any testing and/or

evaluation, and the on-site drainage points that

Aecave teh ap Se the enh ee MAN el Seta ds

(2)

App. 39

were directly observed during the test. Certifica-

tions shall be signed in accordance with Part

VILG of this permit. Such certification may not

be feasible if the facility operating the storm

water discharge associated with industrial activ-

ity does not have access to an outfall, manhole,

or other point of access to the ultimate conduit

which receives the discharge. In such cases, the

source identification section of the plan shall

indicate why the certification required by this

part was not feasible, along with the identifica-

tion of potential significant sources of non-storm

water at the site.

Except for flows from fire fighting activities,

sources of non-storm water listed in Part III.A.2

(authorized non-storm water discharges) of this

permit that are combined with storm water dis-

charges associated with industrial activity must

be identified in the plan. The plan shall identify

and ensure the implementation of appropriate

pollution prevention measures for the non-

storm water component(s) of the discharge.

Sediment and erosion control. The plan shall

identify areas which, due to topography, activ-

ities, or other factors, have a high potential for

significant soil erosion, and identify structural,

vegetative, and/or stabilization measures to be

used to limit erosion.

Management of runoff. The plan shall contain a

narrative consideration of the appropriateness

of traditional storm water management practices

(practices other than those which control the

generation or source(s) of pollutants) used to

divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise manage

storm water runoff in a manner that reduces

pollutants in storm water discharges from the

App. 40

site. The plan shall provide that measures deter-

mined to be reasonable and appropriate shall be

implemented and maintained. The potential of

various sources at the facility to contribute pol-

lutants to storm water discharges associated

with industrial activity (see Parts IV.D.2.

(description of potential pollutant sources) of

this permit) shall be considered when determin-

ing reasonable and appropriate measures.

Appropriate measures may include: vegetative

swales and practices, reuse of collected storm

water (such as for a process or as an irrigation

source), inlet controls (such as oil/water separa-

tors), snow management activities, infiltration

devices, and wet detention/retention devices.

Comprehensive site compliance evaluation/inspec-

tion. Qualified personnel shall conduct site compli-

ance evaluations and inspection at appropriate

intervals specified in the plan, but except as pro-

vided in this part, in no case less than once a year.

Such evaluations shall provide:

Areas contributing to a storm water discharge

associated with industrial activity shall be visu-

ally inspected for evidence of, or the potential

for, pollutants entering the drainage system.

Measures to reduce pollutant loadings shall be

evaluated to determine whether they are ade-

quate and properly implemented in accordance

with the terms of the permit or whether addi-

tional control measures are needed. Structural

storm water management measures, sediment

and erosion control measures, and other struc-

tural pollution prevention measures identified

in the plan shall be observed to ensure that they

are operating correctly. A visual inspection of

App. 41

. equipment needed to implement the plan, such

as spill response equipment, shall be made.

b. Based on the results of the inspection, the

description of potential pollutant sources identi-

fied in the plan (description of potential pollu-

tant sources) and pollution prevention measures

and controls identified (measures and controls)

shall be revised as appropriate within two

: weeks of such inspection and shall provide for

implementation of any changes to the plan in a

timely manner, but in no case more than twelve

weeks after the inspection.

00 ed

ns hill hb Sal

c. A report summarizing the scope of the inspec-

tion, personnel making the inspection, the

date(s) of the inspection, major observations

relating to the implementation of the plan, and

: actions taken in accordance with paragraph

IV.D.4.b (above) of the permit shall be made and

i retained as part of the plan for at least one year

after coverage under this permit terminates. The

report shall be signed in accordance with Part

VILG (signatory requirements) of this permit.

This report shall not be submitted to the Direc-

tor unless specifically requested in writing.

Oe Sa hn AAI NS BA gh Ret aA ROR AK ee ME HLS M0

d. Where annual site inspections are shown in the

plan to be impractical for inactive mining sites

due to the remote location and inaccessibility of

the site, site inspections required under this part

shall be conducted at appropriate intervals spec-

ified in the plan, but, in no case less than once in

three years.

5. Additional requirements for storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity through municipal

separate storm sewer systems serving a population

of 100,000 or more.

App. 42

a. In addition to the applicable requirements of this

permit, facilities covered by this permit must

comply with applicable requirements in munici-

pal storm water management programs devel-

oped under NPDES permits issued for the

discharge of the municipal separate storm sewer

system that receives the facility’s discharge.

b. Permittees which discharge storm water associ-

ated with industrial activity through a municipal

separate storm sewer system serving a popula-

tion of 100,000 or more shall make plans avail-

able to the municipal operator of the system

upon request.

Consistency with other plans. Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plans may reflect requirements for Spill

Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)

plans developed for the facility under Section 311 of

the CWA or Best Management Practices (BMP) Pro-

grams otherwise required by an NPDES permit for

the facility as long as such requirement is incorpo-

rated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

Additional requirements for salt storage. Storage

piles of salt used for deicing or other commercial or

industrial purposes and which generate a storm

water discharge associated with industrial activity

which is discharged to the waters of Georgia shall be

enclosed or covered to prevent exposure to precipita-

tion, except for exposure resulting from adding or

removing materials from the pile. Dischargers shall

demonstrate compliance with this provision as expe-

ditiously as practicable, but in no event later than

three years after issuance of this permit. Piles do not

need to be enclosed or covered where storm water

from the pile is not discharged to the waters of Geor-

gia.

App. 43

PART V. NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATION

Coal Pile Runoff. Any discharge composed of coal

pile runoff shall not exceed a maximum concentration

for any time of 50 mg/L Total Suspended Solids. Coal

pile runoff shall not be diluted with storm water or

other flows in order to meet this limitation. The pH of

such discharges shall be within the range of 6.0-9.0.

Any untreated overflow from facilities designed, con-

structed and operated to treat the volume of coal pile

runoff which is associated with a 10 year, 24 hour

rainfall event shall not be subject to the 50 mg/L

limitation for Total Suspended Solids. Failure to dem-

onstrate compliance with these limitations as expe-

ditiously as practicable, but in no case later than three

years after the date of issuance of this permit will

constitute a violation of this permit.

PART VI. MONITORING AND REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

Monitoring Requirements.

Limitations on monitoring requirements. The Director

can provide written notice to any facility with the

activities specifically identified in Part VI.B.2 of this

permit to conduct sampling of their storm water

discharges associated with industrial activity on a

schedule specified by the Director.

Optional monitoring requirements. During the period

beginning on the effective date and lasting through

the expiration date of this permit, permittees with

facilities identified in Parts VI.A.2.a through j may

consider monitoring those storm water discharges

identified below to document the presence of any

pollutants. Permittees are not to submit monitoring

results, unless specifically required in writing by the

Director. if monitoring of the storm water discharges

App. 44

is conducted, the permittee must retain monitoring

results in accordance with Part VI.D (retention of

records). In addition to the parameters suggested

below, the permittee should record the date and

duration (in hours) of the storm event(s) sampled;

rainfall measurements or estimates (in inches) of the

storm event which generated the sampled runoff; the

duration between the storm event sampled and the

end of the previous measurable (greater than 0.1 inch

rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of the total

volume (in gallons) of the discharge sampled;

a. Section 313 of SARA Title III facilities. In addition

to any monitoring shown in Parts VI.A.2.b

through j, facilities with storm water discharges

associated with industrial activity that are sub-

ject to requirements to report releases into the

environment under Section 313 of SARA Title

III for chemicals which are classified as ‘Section

313 water priority chemicals’ should monitor

the storm water that is discharged from the

facility that comes into contact with any equip-

ment, tank, container or other vessel or area

used for storage of a Section 313 water priority

chemical, or located at a truck or rail car load-

ing or unloading area where a Section 313

water priority chemical is handled for: Oil and

Grease (mg/L); Five Day Biochemical Oxygen

Demand (BODS5S) (mg/L); COD (mg/L); Total

Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L); Total Kjeldahl

Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L); Total Phosphorus

(mg/L); pH; Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity;

and any Section 313 water priority chemical for

which the facility is subject to reporting

requirements under section 313 of the Emer-

gency Planning and Community Right to Know

Act of 1986.

ee ee

+. ee

Ai et A aS te >

App. 45

Primary metal industries. Facilities with storm

water discharges associated with industrial

activity classified as Standard Industrial Classi-

fication (SIC) 33 (Primary Metal Industry)

should monitor such storm water that is dis-

charged from the facility for: Oil and Grease

(mg/L); BODS (mg/L); Chemical Oxygen

Demand (COD) (mg/L); TSS (mg/L); pH;

Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity; Total Lead (mg/

L); Total Cadmium (mg/L); Total Copper (mg/

L); Total Arsenic (mg/L); Total Chromium

(mg/L); and any pollutant limited in an efflu-

ent guideline to which the facility is subject.

Land disposal units/incinerators/BIFs. Facilities

with storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity from any active or inactive

landfill, land application sites or open dump

without a stabilized final cover that has

received any industrial wastes (other than

wastes from a construction site); and incinera-

tors (including Boilers and Industrial Furnaces

(BIFs)) that burn hazardous waste and operate

under interim status or a permit under Subtitle

C of RCRA, should monitor such storm water

that is discharged from the facility for: Ammo-

nia (mg/L), Magnesium (total) (mg/L), Magne-

sium (dissolved) (mg/L), Nitrate plus Nitrite

Nitrogen (mg/L), COD (mg/L), Total Dissolved

Solids (TDS) (mg/L), Total Organic Carbon

(TOC) (mg/L), Oil and Grease (mg/L), pH,

Total Arsenic (mg/L), Total Barium (mg/L),

Total Cadmium (mg/L), Total Chromium (mg /

L), Total Cyanide (mg/L), Total Lead (mg/L),

Total Mercury (mg/L), Total Selenium (mg/L),

Total Silver (mg/L), and Acute Whole Effluent

Toxicity.

App. 46

Wood treatment. Facilities with storm water dis-

charges associated with industrial activity from

areas that are used for wood treatment, wood

surface application or storage of treated or sur-

face protected wood at any wood preserving or

wood surface facilities should monitor such

storm water that is discharged from the facility

for: Oil and Grease (mg/L), pH, BOD5 (mg/L),

COD (mg/L), and TSS (mg/L). In addition,

facilities that use chlorophenolic formulations

shall measure pentachlorophenol (mg/L) and

Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity; facilities which

use creosote formulations shall measure Acute

Whole Effluent Toxicity; and facilities that use

chromium-arsenic formulations shall measure

Total Arsenic (mg/L), Total Chromium (mg/L),

and Total Copper (mg/L).

Coal pile runoff. Facilities with storm water dis-

charges associated with industrial activity from

coal pile runoff should monitor such storm

water that is discharged from the facility for:

Oil and Grease (mg/L), pH, TSS (mg/L), Total

Copper (mg/l), Total Nicxci (mg/l) and Total

zine (mg/}).

Battery reclaimers. Facilities with storm water

discharges associated with industrial activity

from areas used for storage of lead acid bat-

teries, reclamation products, or waste products,

and areas used for lead acid battery reclama-

tion (including material handling activities) at

facilities that reclaim lead acid batteries should

monitor such storm water that is discharged

from the facility for: Oil and Grease (mg/L);

COD (mg/L); TSS (mg/L); pH; Total Copper

(mg/l); and Total Lead (mg/)).

App. 47

Airports. At airports with over 50,000 flight

operations per year, facilities with storm water

discharges associated with industrial activity

from areas where aircraft or airport deicing

operations occur (including runways, taxiways,

ramps, and dedicated aircraft deicing stations)

should monitor such storm water that is dis-

charged from the facility when deicing activ-

ities are occurring for: Oil and Grease (mg/L);

BODS5 (mg/L); COD (mg/L); TSS (mg/L); pH;

and the primary ingredient used in the deicing

materials used at the site (e.g. ethylene glycol,

urea, etc.).

Coal-fired steam electric facilities. Facilities with

storm water discharges associated with indus-

trial activity from coal handling sites at coal

fired steam electric power generating facilities

(other than discharges in whole or in part from

coal piles subject to storm water effluent guide-

lines at 40 CFR 423 — which are not eligible for

coverage under this permit) should monitor

such storm water that is discharged from the

facility for: Oil and Grease (mg/L), pH, TSS

(mg/L), Total Copper (mg/l), Total Nickel

(mg/l) and Total Zinc (mg/]).

Animal handling / meat packing. Facilities with

storm water discharges associated with indus-

trial activity from animal handling areas,

manure management (or storage) areas, and

production waste management (or storage)

areas that are exposed to precipitation at meat

packing plants, poultry packing plants, and

facilities that manufacture animal and marine

fats and oils, should monitor such storm water

that is discharged from the facility for: BOD5

(mg/L); COD (mg/L); TSS (mg/L); TKN (mg/

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

App. 48

L); Total Phosphorus (mg/L); pH; and Fecal

Coliform (counts per 100 mi).

Additional facilities. Facilities with storm water

discharges associated with industrial activity

that:

come in contact with storage piles for solid

chemicals used as raw materials that are

exposed to precipitation at facilities classified

as SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics

Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicals and Allied

Products);

are from those areas at automobile junkyards

with any of the following: (A) over 250 auto/

truck bodies with drivelines (engine, transmis-

sion, axles, and wheels), 250 drivelines, or any

combination thereof (in whole or in parts) are

exposed to storm water; (B) over 500 auto/

truck units (bodies with or without drivelines

in whole or in parts) are stored exposed to

storm water; or (C) over 100 units per year are

dismantled and drainage or storage of automo-

tive fluids occurs in areas exposed to storm

water;

come into contact with lime storage piles that

are exposed to storm water at lime manufactur-

ing facilities;

are from oil handling sites at oil fired steam

electric power generating facilities;

are from cement manufacturing facilities and

cement kilns (other than discharges in whole or

in part from material storage piles subject to

storm water effluent guidelines at 40 CFR 411 -

which are not eligible for coverage under this

permit);

ee ee a

tee

Asa Cr

App. 49

(vi) are from ready-mixed concrete facilities; or

(vii) are from ship building and repairing facilities;

should monitor such storm water discharged from

the facility for: Oil and Grease (mg/L); COD (mg/L);

TSS (mg/L); pH; and any pollutant limited in an

effluent guideline to which the facility is subject.

Sample type. For discharges from holding ponds or

other impoundments with a retention period greater

than 24 hours, (estimated by dividing the volume of

the detention pond by the estimated volume of water

discharged during the 24 hours previous to the time

that the sample is collected) a minimum of one grab

sample may be taken. For all other discharges, data

shall be reported for both a grab sample and a com-

posite sample. All such samples shall be collected

from the discharge resulting from a storm event that

is greater than 0.1 inches In magnitude and that

occurs at least 72 hours from the previously measur-

able (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm event. The

grab sample shall be taken during the first thirty

minutes of the discharge. If the collection of a grab

sample during the first thirty minutes is impractica-

ble, a grab sample can be taken during the first hour

of the discharge, and the discharger shall submit

with the monitoring report a description of why a

grab sample during the first thirty minutes was

impracticable. The composite sample shall either be

flow-weighted or time-weighted. Composite samples

may be taken with a continuous sampler or as a

combination of a minimum of three sample aliquot

taken in each hour of discharge for the entire dis-

charge or for the first three hours of the discharge,

with each aliquot being separated by a minimum

period of fifteen minutes. Grab samples only must be

collected and analyzed for the determination of pH,

cyanide, whole effluent toxicity, and oil and grease.

App. 50

Representative discharge. When a facility has two or

more outfalls that, based on a consideration of indus-

trial activity, significant materials, and management

practices and activities within the area drained by

the outfall, the permittee reasonably believes dis-

charge substantially identical effluent, the permittee

may test the effluent of one of such outfalls and

report that the quantitative data also applies to the

substantially identical outfalls. In addition, for each

outfall that the permittee believes is representative,

an estimate of the size of the drainage area (in square

feet) and an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the

drainage area (e.g., low (under 40 percent), medium

(40 to 65 percent) or high (above 65 percent)) shall be

provided.

Toxicity Testing. Permittees that are notified that

they are required to monitor for acute whole effluent

toxicity shall initiate the series of tests described

below within the time period specified by the Direc-

tor.

—

Test Procedures

a. The permittee shall conduct acute 24 hour static

toxicity tests on both an appropriate invertebrate

and an appropriate fish (vertebrate) test species

(EPA/600/4-90-027 Rev. 9/91, Section 6.1.).

Freshwater species must be used for discharges

to freshwater waterbodies. Due to the non-saline

nature of rainwater, freshwater test species

should also be used for discharges to estuarine,

marine or other naturally saline waterbodies.

b. All test organisms, procedures and quality assur-

ance criteria used shall be in accordance with

Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of effluent

and Receiving-Waters to Freshwater and Marine

Organisms, EPA/600/4-90-027 (Rev. September

App. 51

1991). U.S. EPA has proposed to establish regula-

tions regarding these test methods in the Federal

c. Tests shali be conducted on a grab sample of the

discharge at 100 percent strength (no dilution)

and a control consisting of synthetic dilution

water. Results of all tests conducted with any

species shall be reported according to

EPA/600/4-90-027 (Rev. September 1991), Section

12, Report Preparation.

C. Reporting.

1. Except as provided in Part VI.C.2, permittees are not

to submit monitoring results or a certification, unless

required in writing by the Director.

re ne ee ee nail ee Paw elt tae,

2. Facilities with at least one storm water discharge

associated with industrial activity through a large or

medium municipal separate storm sewer system (sys-

tems serving a population of 100,000 or more) must,

upon the request of the municipality, submit signed

copies of any monitoring reports, certifications and

data to the operator of the municipal separate storm

sewer system.

ee OE a il Ee a EE alpen LAL AP AOE Ai AF

D. Retention of Records.

—

The permittee shall retain the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan developed in accordance with Part

IV (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans) of this

permit until at least one year after coverage under

this permit terminates. The permittee shall retain all

records of all monitoring information, copies of all

reports required by this permit, and records of all

data used to complete the Notice of Intent to be

covered by this permit, until at least one year after

coverage under this permit terminates. This period

may be explicitly modified by alternative provisions

of this permit (see paragraph VI.D.2 (below) of this

' oak

App. 52

permit) or extended by request of the Director at any

time.

For discharges subject to sampling requirements pur-

suant to Part VI.A (monitoring requirements), in

addition to the requirements of paragraph VI.D.1

(above), permittees are required to retain for a three

year period from the date of sample collection or for

the term of this permit, which ever is greater, records

of all monitoring information collected during the

term of this permit. Permittees must submit such

monitoring results to the Director upon the request of

the Director.

PART VII. STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS

A. Duty to Comply.

The permittee must comply with all conditions of this

permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a vio-

lation of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act

(O.C.G.A. § 12-5-20) and is grounds for enforcement

action; for permit termination, revocation and reis-

suance, or modification; or for denial of a permit

renewal application.

Penalties for violations of permit conditions. The

Federal Clean Water Act and the Georgia Water Qual-

ity Control Act provide that any person who falsifies,

tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any

monitoring device or method required under this

permit, makes any false statement, representation, or

certification in any record or other documents sub-

mitted or required to be maintained under this per-

mit, including monitoring reports or reports of

compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction

be punished by a fine or by imprisonment, or by

both. The Federal Clean Water Act and the Georgia

Water Quality Control Act also provide procedures

Te ee ee ere

App. 53

for imposing civil penalties which may be levied for

violations of the Act, any permit condition or limita-

tion established pursuant to the Act, or negligently

or intentionally failing of refusing to comply with

any final or emergency order of the Director.

Continuation of the Expired General Permit.

This permit expires on October 1, 1997. However, an

expired general permit continues in force and effect

until a new general permit is issued. Permittees must

submit a new NOI in accordance with the require-

ments of Part II of this permit, using a NOI form

provided by the Director (or photocopy thereof)

ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of this

permit to remain covered under the continued per-

mit. Facilities that had not obtained coverage under

the permit by October 1, 1997 cannot become autho-

rized to discharge under the continued permit.

Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense. It

shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforce-

ment action that it would have been necessary to halt

or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain

compliance with the conditions of this permit.

Duty to Mitigate. The permittee shall take all reason-

able steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in

violation of this permit which has a reasonable likeli-

hood of adversely affecting human health or the

environment.

Duty to Provide Information. The permittee shall

furnish to the Director, within a time specified by the

Director, any information which the Director may

request to determine compliance with this permit.

The permittee shall also furnish to the Director upon

request copies of records required to be kept by this

permit.

App. 54

Other Information. When the permittee becomes

aware that he failed to submit any relevant facts or

submitted incorrect information in the Notice of

Intent or in any other report to the Director, he shall

promptly submit such facts or information.

Signatory Requirements. All Notices of Intent,

Notices of Termination, storm water pollution pre-

vention plans, reports, certifications or information

either submitted to the Director (and/or the operator

of a large or medium municipal separate storm sewer

system), or that this permit requires be maintained

by the permittee, shall be signed.

All Notices of Intent shall be signed as follows:

a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate offi-

cer. For the purpose of this section, a responsible

corporate officer means: (1) a president, secretary,

treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in

charge of a principal business function, or any

other person who performs similar policy or

decision-making functions for the corporation; or

(2) the manager of one or more manufacturing,

production or operating facilities employing

more than 250 persons or having gross annual

sales or expenditures exceeding $25,000,000 (in

second-quarter 1980 dollars) if authority to sign

documents has been assigned or delegated to the

manager in accordance with corporate pro-

cedures;

b. Fora partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general

partner or the proprietor, respectively; or

c. For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public

agency: by either a principal executive officer or

ranking elected official. For purposes of this sec-

tion, a principal executive officer of a Federal

agency includes (1) the chief executive officer of

App. 55

the agency, or (2) a senior executive officer having

responsibility for the overall operations of a prin-

cipal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional

Administrators of EPA).

2. All reports required by the permit and other informa-

tion requested by the Director shall be signed by a

person described above or by a duly authorized rep-

resentative of that person. A person is a duly autho-

rized representative only if:

a. The authorization is made in writing by a person

described above and submitted to the Driector.

b. The authorization specifies either an individual or

a position having responsibility for the overall

operation of the regulated facility or activity, such

as the position of manager, operator, superinten-

dent, or position of equivalent responsibility or an

individual or position having overall respon-

sibility for environmental matters for the com-

pany. (A duly authorized representative may thus

be either a named individual or any individual

occupying a named position).

c. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under

paragraph VII.G.2 is no longer accurate because a

different individual or position has responsibility

for the overall operation of the facility, a new

notice of intent satisfying the requirements of

paragraph II.C must be submitted to the Director

prior to or together with any reports, information,

or applications to be signed by an authorized

representative.

d. Certification. Any person signing documents

under this section shall make the following certi-

fication:

“I certify under penalty of law that this document

and all attachments were prepared under my

| Pee een eT

App. 56

direction or supervision in accordance with a sys-

tem designed to assure that qualified personnel

properly gathered and evaluated the information

submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or

persons who manage the system, or those persons

directly responsible for gathering the information,

the information submitted is, to the best of my

knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and com-

plete. I am aware that there are significant penal-

ties for submitting false information, including

the possibility of fine and imprisonment for

knowing violations.”

H. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability. Nothing in this

permit shall be construed to preclude the institution

of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any

responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the

permittee is or may be subject under section 311 of

the CWA or section 106 of CERCLA.

I. Property Rights. The issuance of this permit does not

convey any property rights of any sort, nor any exclu-

sive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to

private property nor any invasion of personal rights,

nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or

regulations.

J. Severability. The provisions of this permit are sever-

able, and if any provision of this permit, or the appli-

cation of any provision of this permit to any

circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such

provision to other circumstances, and the remainder

of this permit shall not be affected thereby.

K. Reguiring an Individual Permit or an Alternative General

Permit.

—

App. 57

The Director may require any person authorized by

this permit to apply for and/or obtain either an indi-

vidual NPDES permit or an alternative NPDES gen-

eral permit.

State/Environmental Laws.

Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude

the institution of any legal action or relieve the per-

mittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penal-

ties established pursuant to any applicable State law

or regulation under authority preserved by section

510 of the Act.

No condition of this permit shall release the permittee

from any responsibility or requirements under other

environmental statutes or regulations.

Proper Operation and Maintenance. The permittee shall

at all times properly operate and maintain all facili-

ties and systems of treatment and control (and related

appurtenances) which are installed or used by the

permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions

of this permit and with the requirements of storm

water pollution prevention plans. Proper operation

and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory

controls and appropriate quality assurance pro-

cedures. Proper operation and maintenance requires

the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or simi-

lar systems, installed by a permittee only when neces-

sary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the

permit.

Monitoring and Records.

Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of

monitoring shall be representative of the monitored

activity.

The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring

information including all calibration and maintenance

App. 58

records and all original strip chart recordings for

continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of the

reports required by this permit, and records of all

data used to complete the application for this permit,

for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the

sample, measurement, report or application. This

period may be extended by request of the Director at

any time.

Records Cortents. Records of monitoring information

shall include:

a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or

measurements;

b. The initials or name(s) of the individual(s) who

performed the sampling or measurements;

c. The date(s) analyses were performed;

d. The time(s) anaylses were initiated;

e. The initials or name(s) of the individual(s) who

performed the analyses;

f. References and written procedures, when avail-

able, for the analytical techniques or methods

used; and

g. The results of such analyses, including the bench

sheets, instrument readouts, computer disks or

tapes, etc., used to determine these results.

Monitoring must be conducted according to test pro-

cedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless

other test procedures have been specified in this per-

mit.

. Inspection and Entry. The permittee shall allow the

Director or an authorized representative of EPA, the

State, or, in the case of a facility which discharges

through a municipal separate storm sewer, an autho-

rized representative of the municipal operator or the

App. 59

separate storm sewer receiving the discharge, upon

the presentation of credentials and other documents

as may be required by law, to:

1. Enter upon the permittee’s premises where a regu-

lated facility or activity is located or conducted or

where records must be kept under the conditions of

this permit;

2. Have access to and copy at reasonable times, any

records that must be kept under the conditions of this

permit; and

3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities or equip-

ment (including monitoring and control equipment).

P. Permit Actions. This permit may be modified, revoked

and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a

request by the permittee for a permit modification,

revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a noti-

fication of planned changes or anticipated noncom-

pliance does not stay any permit condition.

Part VIII. TERMINATION OF COVERAGE

A. Notice of Termination. Where all storm water dis-

charges associated with industrial activity that are

authorized by this permit are eliminated, the operator

of the facility may submit a Notice of Termination

that is signed in accordance with Part VII.G (signa-

tory requirements) of this permit. The Notice of Ter-

mination shall include the following information:

1. Name, mailing address, county, and location of the

facility for which the notification is submitted. Where

a mailing address for the site is not available, the

location can be described in narrative terms or in

terms of the latitude and longitude of the facility to

the nearest 15 seconds where the facility is located;

App. 60

2. Up to four 4-digit SIC codes that best represent the

principal products or activities provided by the facil-

ity;

3. The operator’s name, address, telephone number,

ownership status and status as Federal, State, private,

public or other entity;

4. The NPDES permit for the storm water discharge

associated with industrial activity identified by the

Notice of Termination; and

5. The following certification signed in accordance with

Part VII.G (signatory requirements) of this permit:

“I certify under penalty of law that all storm

water discharges associated with industrial

activity from the identified facility that are

authorized by a NPDES general permit have

been eliminated. I understand that by submit-

ting this notice of termination, that I am no

longer authorized to discharge storm water

associated with industrial activity under this

general permit, and that discharging pollutants

in storm water associated with industrial activ-

ity to waters of the United States is unlawful

under the Clean Water Act where the discharge

is not authorized by a NPDES permit.”

B. Addresses. All Notices of Termination are to be sent,

~ using the form provided by the Director (or a photo-

copy thereof), to the Director of the NPDES program

in care of the address shown in Part ILC.

———

App. 61

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

205 Butler Street, S.E., East Floyd Tower,

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner

Harold F. Reheis, Director

Environmental Protection Division

September 23, 1992

PUBLIC NOTICE

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 92-16

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL NATIONAL POLLU-

TANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS

FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES INTO WATERS OF

THE STATE OF GEORGIA. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC

HEARING ON PROPOSED GENERAL NATIONAL POL-

LUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PER-

MITS FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES.

The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the

Georgia Department of Natural Resources proposes to

issue two General National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-

tion System (NPDES) Permits for Storm Water Dis-

charges. NPDES Permit No. GAR000000 will authorize

storm water discharges from industrial facilities as

defined in the Federal regulations promulgated under the

Federal Clean Water Act. NPDES Permit No. GAR100000

will authorize storm water discharges from construction

activities involving land disturbing activities of five or

more acres. These NPDES General Permits authorize a

category of applicants to discharge storm water in the

—— — _ -

App. 62

State of Georgia. NPDES Permits are valid for a maxi-

mum of five years.

Persons wishing to comment on the proposed general

permits are invited to submit same in writing to the EPD

address below, no later than October 29, 1992. All com-

ments received prior to or on that date will be considered

in the formulation of final determinations regarding these

permits.

A public hearing will be held on the proposed NPDES

General Permits on October 29, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. in Room

401 of the Department of Transportation, 2 Capitol

Square, Atlanta, Georgia. The public hearing will be to

present the proposed NPDES General Permits and to

receive comments regarding these permits. At the Octo-

ber 29, 1992 public hearing, anyone may present data,

make a statement, comment or offer a viewpoint either

orally or in writing. Oral statements must be concise to

permit everyone an opportunity to be heard. Written

comments received on or before October 29, 1992 will be

part of the hearing record. Written comments may be

mailed to the EPD address below or delivered at the

public hearing.

Copies of the proposed permits are available by writing

the Environmental Protection Division and including a

check in the amount of $12.50 to cover copying charges.

The Federal regulations, draft permits, comments

received, and other information are available to review at

205 Butler Street, S.E., Floyd Towers East, Room 1070,

Atlanta, Georgia 30334, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. Copies of the proposed permits

are also available for review at the EPD Regional Offices

App. 63

in Albany, Brunswick and Macon, and at the Georgia Tech

Research Institute, Economic Development Laboratory,

Regional Offices in Augusta, Albany, Brunswick, Car-

rollton, Columbus, Douglas, Dublin, Gainesville, Macon,

Madison, Rome and Savannah. Addresses for these addi-

tional review locations are available by calling (404)

656-4887. For additional information contact: Lawrence

W. Hedges or Will Salter, Industrial Wastewater Program,

phone (404) 6560-4887.

Please bring this notice to the attention of interested

persons.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.