Proposed Reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities

Federal RegisterMar 30, 2000

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6562-5]

Proposed Reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Notice of proposed NPDES general permit.

SUMMARY:

EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are today proposing to reissue EPA's NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). This general permit was first issued on September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50804), and amended on February 9, 1996 (61 FR 5248), February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6412), September 24, 1996 (61 FR 50020), August 7, 1998 (63 FR 42534) and September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430). Today's proposed MSGP is similar to the 1995 permit, as amended, and will authorize the discharge of storm water from industrial facilities consistent with the terms of the permit.

Public Comment Period:

The public comment period for the proposed MSGP will be from today's date until May 30, 2000. All public comments must be submitted to: ATTN: MSGP-2000 Comments, W-99-26, MC 4101, U.S. EPA, Room EB57, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Please submit the original and three copies of your comments and enclosures (including references). Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight no later than May 30, 2000. To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or sections in the notice or supporting documents to which each comment refers. Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope. No fascimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: ow-docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and forms of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W-99-26 (MSGP-2000). No Confidential Business information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1 format or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

The record for today's proposed MSGP has been established under docket number W-99-26, and includes supporting documentation as well as printed, paper versions of electronic comments. It does not include any information claimed as CBI.

Public Meetings:

Public meetings on the proposed permit will be held at the locations listed below. The public meetings will include a presentation on the draft permits and a question and answer session. Written, but not oral, comments for the official permit record will be accepted at the public meetings.

Dallas, TX:

May 1, 2000, 1:00 pm, EPA Region 6 Offices, 12th Floor, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas.

Santa Fe, NM:

April 24, 2000, 1:00 pm, New Mexico Environment Department Offices, Runnels Building Auditorium, 1190 St. Francis Dr., Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Additional public meets may be scheduled in one or more EPA regions. For times and locations, please visit our MSGP web site at www.epa.gov/owm/sw/industry/msgp/index.htm.

Public Hearings:

EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public comment concerning today's proposal in view of the limited attendance at previous hearings which have been held related to the existing MSGP. All persons will continue to have the right to provide written comments at any time during the public comment period. However, interested persons may request a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12 concerning the proposed MSGP-2000. Requests for a public hearing must be sent or delivered in writing to the same address as provided above for public comments prior to the close of the comment period. Requests for a public hearing must state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, EPA shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the basis of requests, a significant degree of public interest in the proposed permit. If EPA decides to hold a public hearing, a public notice of the date, time and place of the hearing will be made at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Any person may provide written or oral statements and data pertaining to the proposed permit at the public hearing.

ADDRESSES:

The index to the administrative record for the proposed MSGP is available at the appropriate Regional Office or from the EPA Water Docket Office in Washington, DC. The administrative record is stored in two locations. Documents immediately referenced in this reissuance notice are stored at the EPA Water Docket Office at the following address: Water Docket, MC-4101, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. All other documents which were used to support the original issuance of the MSGP in 1995 are a supplement to the record for this reissuance and are stored at U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. These materials include, for example, the permit applications and sampling data provided to EPA by group applicants. The immediate and supplemental records are available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For appointments to examine any portion of the administrative record, please call the Water Docket Office at (202) 260-3027. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Specific record information can also be made available at the appropriate Regional Office upon request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information on the proposed MSGP, contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office or Dan Weese at (202) 260-6809. The name, address and phone number of the EPA Regional Storm Water Coordinators are provided in Section VI.F of this fact sheet.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The following fact sheet provides background information and explanation for today's notice of proposed MSGP reissuance. The actual language of the proposed MSGP appears after this fact sheet.

Fact Sheet

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities in General

B. Summary of Options for Controlling Pollutants

C. The Federal/Municipal Partnership: The Role of Municipal Operators of Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems

II. Organization of Today's Proposed MSGP and Summary of Proposed Changes

III. Geographic Coverage of Proposed MSGP

IV. Categories of Facilities Covered by Proposed MSGP

V. Limitations on Coverage

A. Storm Water Discharges Subject to Effluent Guidelines, Including New Source Performance Standards

B. Historic Preservation

C. Endangered Species

D. New Storm Water Discharges to Water-Quality Impaired Receiving Waters

E. Storm Water Discharges Subject to Anti-Degradation Water Quality Standards

F. Storm Water Discharges Previously Covered by an Individual Permit

VI. Summary of Common Permit Conditions

A. Notification Requirements

1. Contents of NOIs

2. Deadlines

3. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Operator Notification

4. Notice of Termination

5. Conditional Exclusion for No Exposure

B. Special Conditions

1. Prohibition of Non-storm Water Discharges

2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of Hazardous Substances and Oil

3. Co-located Industrial Facilities

4. Numeric Effluent Limitations

5. Compliance with Water Quality Standards

C. Common Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements

1. Pollution Prevention Team

2. Description of the Facility and Potential Pollution Sources

3. Selection and Implementation of Storm Water Controls

4. Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation

D. Special Requirements

1. Special Requirements for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity from Facilities Subject to EPCRA Section 313 Requirements

2. Special Requirements for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity from Salt Storage Facilities

3. Consistency With Other Plans

E. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

1. Analytical Monitoring Requirements

2. Compliance Monitoring

3. Alternate Certification

4. Reporting and Retention Requirements

5. Sample Type

6. Representative Discharge

7. Sampling Waiver

8. Quarterly Visual Examination of Storm Water Quality

F. Regional Offices

1. Notice of Intent Address

2. Regional Office Addresses and Contacts

VII. Cost Estimates For Common Permit Requirements

VIII. Special Requirements for Discharges Associated with Specific Industrial Activities

IX. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866)

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

XIII. Official Signatures

I. Background

EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are today proposing to reissue EPA's NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). The MSGP currently authorizes storm water discharges from a particular facility for most areas of the United States where the NPDES permit program has not been delegated. The MSGP was originally issued on September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50804), and amended on February 9, 1996 (61 FR 5248), February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6412), September 24, 1996 (61 FR 50020), August 7, 1998 (63 FR 42534) and September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430).

The 1995 MSGP was the culmination of the group permit application process described at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(2). A group permit application was one of three options for obtaining an NPDES industrial storm water permit which were provided by the 1990 storm water permit application regulations (47 FR 47990). The 1990 regulations also provided that industrial facilities could apply for coverage under an existing general NPDES permit or apply for an individual permit. In 1992, EPA issued a baseline general permit (57 FR 41175 and 57 FR 44412) to cover industrial facilities which did not select the group application option or submit an application for an individual permit.

In response to the group application option, EPA received applications from approximately 1,200 groups representing nearly all of the categories of industrial facilities listed in the storm water regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). To facilitate permit issuance for the group applications, EPA consolidated the groups into 29 industrial sectors, with subsectors also included in certain sectors as appropriate.

In developing the requirements for the 1995 MSGP, EPA utilized and built upon the storm water pollution control requirements of the 1992 baseline general permit. The baseline permit had required a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) with generic best management practice (BMP) requirements which applied to all facilities covered by the permit. In addition, certain categories of facilities were required to monitor storm water discharges based on EPA's best professional judgment concerning the risks posed by the facilities.

The group permit applications included information concerning the specific types of operations present at the different types of industrial facilities, potential sources of pollutants at the facilities, industry-specific BMPs which are available, and monitoring data from the different types of facilities. Using this information, EPA developed SWPPP requirements for the MSGP which consisted of the generic requirements of the baseline permit plus industry-specific requirements developed from the group application information. Also, the industries required to perform monitoring and the contaminants to be monitored for in the 1995 MSGP were developed using the monitoring data submitted with the group applications rather than EPA's best professional judgment.

On September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430), EPA terminated the baseline general permit and required facilities which were previously covered by the baseline permit to seek coverage under the MSGP (or submit an individual permit application). EPA believed that the MSGP, with its industry-specific requirements, would provide improved water quality benefits as compared to the baseline permit.

For the reissuance of the MSGP, EPA has re-evaluated the industry-specific requirements of the MSGP. In a few instances, additional requirements have been proposed based on new information which has been obtained since the original MSGP issuance in 1995. These changes are discussed in more detail in Section VIII of this fact sheet. EPA also re-evaluated the monitoring requirements of the existing MSGP. Although no changes are being proposed in the monitoring requirements, EPA is interested in receiving comments on these requirements and exploring alternatives as discussed in Section VI.E of the fact sheet.

A. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activities in General

The volume and quality of storm water discharges from a particular facility will depend on a number of factors, including the industrial activities occurring at the facility, the nature of the precipitation, and the degree of surface imperviousness. A discussion of these factors was provided in the fact sheet for the original proposed MSGP (58 FR 61146 Nov. 19, 1993), and is not being repeated here.

B. Summary of Options for Controlling Pollutants

Pollutants in storm water discharges from industrial plants may be reduced using several methods, including: Eliminating pollutant sources; implementing BMPs that prevent the generation of pollutant sources and/or control the discharge of pollutants; and end-of-pipe treatment. A general discussion of each of these was presented in the original MSGP proposal (58 FR 61146, Nov. 19, 1993), and is not being repeated here.

C. The Federal/Municipal Partnership: The Role of Municipal Operators of Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems

A key issue in developing a workable regulatory program for controlling pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity is the proper use and coordination of limited

regulatory resources. This is especially important when addressing the appropriate role of municipal operators of large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems in the control of pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity which are conveyed through municipal separate storm sewer systems. The original proposed MSGP discussed several key policy factors (see 58 FR 61146).

II. Organization of Proposed MSGP and Summary of Proposed Changes

The organization of today's proposal has been revised from the 1995 MSGP to reduce the overall size of the permit. In Part XI of the 1995 MSGP, many requirements such as SWPPP and monitoring requirements which were common to each sector were repeated in each sector, greatly adding to length of the permit. For today's proposal, such requirements are found only once in expanded sections of the permit (Parts 4 and 5) which include requirements common to each sector. Requirements which are genuinely unique to a given sector or subsector are found in Part 6 in the permit. Similarly, Section VIII of the fact sheet for the 1995 MSGP repeated certain explanatory information in the discussions of sector-specific requirements, and also included considerable descriptive information about the various sectors. To reduce the length of today's notice, most of this information is not being repeated. Section VIII of today's fact sheet focuses on the changes (if any) which are being proposed for the various sectors. The reorganization and reduction of duplication have reduced the size of the permit by approximately 50%.

Also note that the section/paragraph identification scheme of the proposed MSGP-2000 has been modified from the existing MSGP. The original scheme utilized a sometimes lengthy combination of numbers, letters and Roman numerals (in both upper and lower cases) which many permittees found confusing. Today's proposal identifies sections/paragraphs, and hence permit conditions, using numbers only, except in Part 6 (which also incorporates the sector letters from the 1995 MSGP for consistency). Under the original permit, only the last digit or letter of the section/paragraph identifier appeared with its accompanying section title/paragraph, making it difficult to determine where you were in the permit. In today's proposal, the entire string of identifying numbers is listed at each section/paragraph to facilitate recognizing where you are and in citing and navigating through the permit. For example, paragraph number 1.2.3.5 tells you immediately that you are in Part 1, section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraph 5; whereas under the 1995 MSGP you would only see an “e”, thereby forcing you to hunt back through the permit to determine that you were in Part I.B.3.e. The exception to the numbering rule is in Part 6, where the Sector letters from the 1995 MSGP have been retained to correspond to the sectors of industry covered by the permit and make it easy to tell that you are in a section of the permit which has conditions which only apply to a specific industrial sector. For example, paragraph 6.F.3.4 immediately tells you that you are in Part 6 and looking at conditions that only apply to sector “F” facilities. In some cases, requirements which previously appeared in a single paragraph are now found listed out as separate individual items. The proposed MSGP is also written in EPA's “readable regulations” style using terms like “you” and “your” in referring to permittees, etc.

Following below is a list of the major changes in today's proposal as compared to the existing MSGP. These changes are discussed in more detail later in this fact sheet.

1. Requirements for co-located activities clarified (Part 1.2.1.1).

2. Incidental cooling tower mist discharges included as an authorized non-storm water discharge, subject to certain requirements (Parts 1.2.2.2.13 and 4.4.2.3).

3. Provided eligibility for coverage of inactive mining activities occurring on Federal Lands where an operator has not been identified (Part 1.2.3).

4. Clarified language for situations where a discharge previously covered by an individual permit can be covered under the MSGP-2000 (Part 1.2.3.3).

5. Clarified/added language for compliance with water quality standards and requirements for follow-up actions if standards are exceeded (Parts 1.2.3.5 and 3.3).

6. ESA and NHPA eligibility requirements modified (Parts 1.2.3.6 and 1.2.3.7).

7. Eligibility requirements for discharges to water quality impaired/limited waterbodies added/clarified (Part 1.2.3.8).

8. Clarifies that discharges which do not comply with anti-degradation requirements are not authorized by the permit (Part 1.2.3.9).

9. Deadline of 30 days for submission of an NOT added (Part 1.4.2).

10. Opportunity for termination of permit coverage based on the “no exposure exemption” from the Phase II storm water regulations (64 FR 68722, 12/8/99) added (Parts 1.5 and 11.4).

11. Notice of Intent requirements and form modified (Part 2.2 and Addendum D).

12. Permit will accommodate electronic filing of NOIs, NOTs, or DMRs, should these options become available during the term of the permit (Parts 2.3, 7.1, and 11.3)

13. Prohibition on discharges of solid materials and floating debris and requirement to minimize off-site tracking of materials and generation of dust added (Part 4.2.7.2.3).

14. Requirement to include a copy of the permit with the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) was added (Part 4.7).

15. Special conditions for EPCRA 313 facilities were modified (Part 4.12).

16. Monitoring requirements reorganized and additional clarification/revisions on monitoring periods, waivers, default minimum monitoring for limitations added by State 401 certification, and reporting requirements added. Public specifically requested to comment on alternatives to proposed benchmark monitoring scheme (Parts 5 and 7).

17. Manufacturing of fertilizer from leather scraps (SIC 2873) moved from Sector Z—Leather Tanning and Finishing to Sector C—Chemical and Allied Products (Table 1 and Part 6.C).

18. New effluent limitations guidelines for landfills in Sectors K and L included; the final guidelines were published in the

Federal Register

on January 19, 2000 (65 FR 3007) (Parts 6.K.5 and 6.L.6).

19. Sector AD (Non-Classified Facilities) language clarified to say that facilities cannot choose coverage under Sector AD, but can only be so assigned by permitting authority (Part 6.AD).

20. Additional BMP requirements in Sectors S, T, and Y added (Parts 6.S, 6.T, and 6.Y).

21. NOI to continue coverage under the permit when it expires (without a replacement permit in place) is not required and the reapplication process has been clarified (Part 9.2).

22. Process for EPA to remove facilities from permit coverage clarified (Part 9.12).

In conjunction with the final permit, EPA anticipates making a “User's Guide” available that would answer common questions regarding how to obtain coverage and comply with the MSGP. This users guide would most likely be made available via the Internet.

III. Geographic Coverage of Proposed MSGP

The geographic coverage of today's proposed MSGP includes the following areas:

EPA Region 1—for the States of Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire; for Indian country located in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine; and for Federal facilities in the State of Vermont.

EPA Region 2—for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

EPA Region 3—for the District of Columbia and Federal facilities in the State of Delaware.

EPA Region 4—for the State of Florida; and for Indian country located in the State of Florida.

EPA Region 6—for the State of New Mexico; for Indian country located in the States of Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma (except Navajo lands and Ute Mountain Reservation lands); for Oil and gas facilities under SIC codes 1311, 1381, 1382, and 1389 and 5171 and point source (but not non-point source) discharges associated with agricultural production, services, and silviculture in the State of Oklahoma, except those on Indian Country lands; and oil and gas facilities under SIC codes 1311, 1321, 1381, 1382, and 1389 in the State of Texas not on Indian Country lands.

EPA Region 8—for Federal facilities in the State of Colorado; for Indian Country lands in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Utah (except Goshute Reservation lands); for Ute Mountain Reservation lands in Colorado and New Mexico; and for Pine Ridge Reservation lands in South Dakota and Nebraska.

EPA Region 9—for the State of Arizona; for the Territories of Johnston Atoll, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Midway and Wake Islands; for Indian country located in Arizona, California, and Nevada; and for the Goshute Reservation in Utah and Nevada, the Navajo Reservation in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley Reservation in Nevada and Idaho, and the Fort McDermitt Reservation in Oregon and Nevada.

EPA Region 10—for the States of Alaska and Idaho; for Indian country located in Alaska, Oregon (except Fort McDermitt Reservation lands), Idaho (except Duck Valley Reservation lands) and Washington; and for Federal facilities in Washington.

For several reasons, the geographic area of coverage described above differs from the area of coverage of the 1995 MSGP. Indian country in Vermont and New Hampshire has been removed since there are no Federally recognized tribes in these States. Also, state NPDES permit programs have since been authorized in the States of South Dakota, Louisiana, Oklahoma (except for certain oil and gas facilities and agriculture-related point sources in Oklahoma) and Texas (again except for oil and gas facilities). In Oklahoma, EPA maintains NPDES permitting authority over oil and gas exploration and production related industries, and pipeline operations regulated by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and point source (but not non-point source) discharges associated with agricultural production, services, and silviculture regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, except those on Indian Country lands (See 61 FR 65049). Oklahoma received NPDES program authorization only for those discharges covered by the authority of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). In Texas, EPA maintains NPDES permitting authority over oil and gas discharges regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission (See 63 FR 51164). Texas received NPDES program authorization only for those discharges covered by the authority of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC).

Federal facilities in Colorado, and Indian country located in Colorado (including the portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico), Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota (including the portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation located in Nebraska), Utah (except for the Goshute and Navajo Reservation lands) and Wyoming were not included in the 1995 MSGP, but are now proposed to be included. At the present time, industrial facilities in these areas are largely covered under an extension of EPA's 1992 baseline general permit for industries (57 FR 41175).

Lastly, subsequent to the issuance of the MSGP in 1995, coverage was extended to the Island of Guam on September 24, 1996 (61 FR 50020) and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands on September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430).

There are some areas where the NPDES permit program has not been delegated (such as Indian country in states not listed above) where neither the MSGP nor an alternate general permit is available for authorization of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. However, only a very small number of permittees exist in such areas and individual permits are issued as needed.

IV. Categories of Facilities Covered by the Proposed MSGP

The proposed MSGP would authorize storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from the categories of facilities shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1.—Sector/Subsectors Covered by the Proposed MSGP

Subsector

SIC code

Activity represented

Sector A. Timber Products

2421

General Sawmills and Planning Mills.

2491

Wood Preserving

2411

Log Storage and Handling.

2426

Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills.

2429

Special Product Sawmills, Not Elsewhere Classified.

2431-2439 (except 2434)

Millwork, Veneer, Plywood, and Structural Wood.

2448, 2449

Wood Containers.

2451, 2452

Wood Buildings and Mobile Homes.

2493

Reconstituted Wood Products.

2499

Wood Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

Sector B. Paper and Allied Products Manufacturing

2611

Pulp Mills.

2621

Paper Mills.

2631

Paperboard Mills.

2652-2657

Paperboard Containers and Boxes.

2671-2679

Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, Except Containers and Boxes.

Sector C. Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing

2812-2819

Industrial Inorganic Chemicals.

2821-2824

Plastics Materials and Synthetic Resins, Synthetic Rubber, Cellulosic and Other Manmade Fibers Except Glass.

2833-2836

Medicinal chemicals and botanical products; pharmaceutical preparations; invitro and invivo diagnostic substances; biological products, except diagnostic substances.

2841-2844

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

2851

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

2861-2869

Industrial Organic Chemicals.

2873-2879

Agricultural Chemicals, Including Facilities that Make Fertilizer Solely from Leather Scraps and Leather Dust.

2891-2899

Miscellaneous Chemical Products.

3952 (limited to list)

Inks and Paints, Including China Painting Enamels, India Ink, Drawing Ink, Platinum Paints for Burnt Wood or Leather Work, Paints for China Painting, Artist's Paints and Artist's Watercolors.

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

2951, 2952

Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials.

2992, 2999

Miscellaneous Products of Petroleum and Coal.

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

3211

Flat Glass.

3221, 3229

Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown.

3231

Glass Products Made of Purchased Glass.

3281

Cut Stone and Stone Products.

3297

Abrasive, Asbestos, and Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Products.

3241

Hydraulic Cement.

3251-3259

Structural Clay Products.

3262-3269

Pottery and Related Products.

3297

Non-Clay Refractories.

3271-3275

Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products.

3295

Minerals and Earth's, Ground, or Otherwise Treated.

Sector F. Primary Metals

3312-3317

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

3321-3325

Iron and Steel Foundries.

3331-3339

Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals.

3341

Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals.

3351-3357

Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Nonferrous Metals.

3363-3369

Nonferrous Foundries (Castings).

3398, 3399

Miscellaneous Primary Metal Products.

Sector G. Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing)

1011

Iron Ores.

1021

Copper Ores.

1031

Lead and Zinc Ores.

1041, 1044

Gold and Silver Ores.

1061

Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium.

1081

Metal Mining Services.

1094, 1099

Miscellaneous Metal Ores.

Sector H. Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities

NA*

1221-1241

Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities.

Sector I. Oil and Gas Extraction

1311

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas.

1321

Natural Gas Liquids.

1381-1389

Oil and Gas Field Services.

2911

Petroleum refining

Sector J. Mineral Mining and Dressing

1411

Dimension Stone.

1422-1429

Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Rip Rap.

1481

Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels.

1442, 1446

Sand and Gravel.

1455, 1459

Clay, Ceramic, and Refractory Materials.

1474-1479

Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining.

1499

Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels.

Sector K. Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal Facilities

NA*

Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal.

Sector L. Landfills and Land Application Sites

NA*

Landfills, Land Application Sites and Open Dumps.

Sector M. Automobile Salvage Yards

NA*

5015

Automobile Salvage Yards.

Sector N. Scrap Recycling Facilities

NA*

5093

Scrap Recycling Facilities.

Sector O. Steam Electric Generating Facilities

NA*

Steam Electric Generating Facilities.

Sector P. Land Transportation

4011, 4013

Railroad Transportation.

4111-4173

Local and Highway Passenger Transportation.

4212-4231

Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing.

4311

United States Postal Service.

5171

Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals.

Sector Q. Water Transportation

NA*

4412-4499

Water Transportation.

Sector R. Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards

3731, 3732

Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards.

Sector S. Air Transportation Facilities

NA*

4512-4581

Air Transportation Facilities.

Sector T. Treatment Works

NA*

Treatment Works.

Sector U. Food and Kindred Products

2011-2015

Meat Products.

2021-2026

Dairy Products.

2032

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

2041-2048

Grain Mill Products.

2051-2053

Bakery Products.

2061-2068

Sugar and Confectionery Products.

2074-2079

Fats and Oils.

2082-2087

Beverages.

2091-2099

Miscellaneous Food Preparations and Kindred Products.

2111-2141

Tobacco Products.

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

2211-2299

Textile Mill Products.

2311-2399

Apparel and Other Finished Products Made From Fabrics and Similar Materials.

3131-3199 (except 3111)

Leather Products.

Sector W. Furniture and Fixtures

2511-2599

Furniture and Fixtures.

2434

Wood Kitchen Cabinets.

Sector X. Printing and Publishing

2711-2796

Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries.

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

3011

Tires and Inner Tubes.

3021

Rubber and Plastics Footwear.

3052, 3053

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

3061, 3069

Fabricated Rubber Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

3081-3089

Miscellaneous Plastics Products.

3931

Musical Instruments.

3942-3949

Dolls, Toys, Games and Sporting and Athletic Goods.

3951-3955 (except 3952 as specified in Sector C)

Pens, Pencils, and Other Artists' Materials.

3961, 3965

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

3991-3999

Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.

Sector Z. Leather Tanning and Finishing

3111

Leather Tanning and Finishing.

Sector AA. Fabricated Metal Products

3411-3499

Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment and Cutting, Engraving and Allied Services.

3911-3915

Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Ware.

3479

Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services.

Sector AB. Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial Machinery

3511-3599 (except 3571-3579)

Industrial and Commercial Machinery (except Computer and Office Equipment—see Sector AC).

3711-3799 (except 3731, 3732)

Transportation Equipment (except Ship and Boat Building and Repairing—see Sector R).

Sector AC. Electronic, Electrical, Photographic and Optical Goods

3612-3699

Electronic, Electrical Equipment and Components, Except Computer Equipment.

3812-3873

Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instrument; Photographic and Optical Goods, Watches and Clocks.

3571-3579

Computer and Office Equipment.

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

* Denotes subsector with analytical (chemical) monitoring requirements.

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

The final MSGP modification of September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430) expanded the coverage of the 1995 MSGP to include a small number of categories of facilities which had been covered by the 1992 baseline industrial general permit but excluded from the MSGP. In Table 1 above, these categories have been included in the appropriate sectors/subsectors of the MSGP as determined by the September 30, 1998 modification.

With the September 30, 1998 modification, EPA believes that the MSGP now covers all of the categories of industrial facilities which may discharge storm water associated with industrial activity as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) (except construction activities disturbing five or more acres which are permitted separately). However, the September 30, 1998 modification also added another sector to the MSGP (Sector AD) to cover any inadvertent omissions. EPA is proposing to retain Sector AD in the reissued MSGP.

Sector AD is further intended to provide a readily available means for covering many of the storm water facilities which are designated for permitting in accordance with NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(g)(1)(i). These regulations provide that permit applications may be required within 180 days of notice for any discharges which contribute to a violation of a water

quality standard, or are determined to be significant sources of pollutants.

EPA also recognizes that a new North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was recently adopted by the Office of Management and Budget (62 FR 17288, April 9, 1997). NAICS replaces the 1987 standard industrial classification (SIC) code system for the collection of statistical economic data. However, the use of the new system for nonstatistical purposes is optional. EPA considered the use of NAICS for the today's proposal, but elected to retain the 1987 SIC code system since the storm water regulations (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)) reference the previous system and this system has generally proven to be adequate for identifying the facilities covered by storm water regulations. EPA will consider transitioning to the new NAICS system in future rule making.

V. Limitations on Coverage

A. Storm Water Discharges Subject to Effluent Guideline Limitations, Including New Source Performance Standards

The general prohibition on coverage of storm water subject to an effluent guideline limitation in the 1995 MSGP has been retained. Only those storm water discharges subject to the following effluent guidelines are eligible for coverage (provided they meet all other eligibility requirements):

Table 2.—Effluent Guidelines Applicable to Discharges That May be Eligible for Permit Coverage

Effluent guideline

New source

Sectors

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

Yes

Discharges resulting from spray down or intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage areas [40 CFR Part 429, Subpart I (established January 26, 1981)]

Yes

Mine dewatering discharges at crushed stone mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart B]

Mine dewatering discharges at construction sand and gravel mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart C]

Mine dewatering discharges at industrial sand mines [40 CFR part 436, Subpart D]

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

Yes

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

Yes

K & L

New Source Performance Standards Included in Effluent Guidelines?

Sectors with Affected Facilitates.

Section 306 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to develop performance standards for all new sources described in that section. These standards apply to all facilities which go into operation after the date the standards are promulgated. Section 511(c) of the CWA Act requires the Agency to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to issuance of a permit under the authority of section 402 of the CWA to facilities defined as a new source under Section 306.

The fact sheet for the existing MSGP described a process for ensuring compliance with NEPA for the MSGP (60 FR 50809). This process, which is repeated below, is proposed to be retained for the reissued MSGP. Additional guidance is found in a new Addendum C to the proposed MSGP.

Facilities which are subject to the performance standards for new sources as described in this section of the fact sheet must provide EPA with an Environmental Information Document pursuant to 40 CFR 6.101 prior to seeking coverage under this permit. This information shall be used by the Agency to evaluate the facility under the requirements of NEPA in an Environmental Review. The Agency will make a final decision regarding the direct or indirect impact of the discharge. The Agency will follow all administrative procedures required in this process. The permittee must obtain a copy of the Agency's final finding prior to the submission of a Notice of Intent to be covered by this general permit. In order to maintain eligibility, the permittee must implement any mitigation required of the facility as a result of the NEPA review process. Failure to implement mitigation measures upon which the Agency's NEPA finding is based is grounds for termination of permit coverage. In this way, EPA has established a procedure which allows for the appropriate review procedures to be completed by this Agency prior to the issuance of a permit under section 402 of the CWA to an operator of a facility subject to the new source performance standards of section 306 of the CWA. EPA believes that it has fulfilled its requirements under NEPA for this Federal action under section 402 of the CWA.

B. Historic Preservation

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of Federal undertakings, including undertakings on historic properties that are either listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. The term “Federal undertaking” is defined in the existing NHPA regulations to include any project, activity, or program under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency that can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such historic properties are located in the area of potential effects for that project, activity, or program. See 36 CFR 800.2(a). Historic properties are defined in the NHPA regulations to include prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are included in, or are eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. See 36 CFR 800.2(e).

Federal undertakings include the EPA's issuance of general NPDES permits. In light of NHPA requirements, EPA included a provision in the eligibility requirements of the 1995 MSGP for the consideration of the effects to historic properties. That provision provides that an applicant is eligible for permit coverage only if: (1) The applicant's storm water discharges and BMPs to control storm water runoff do not affect a historic property, or (2) the applicant has obtained, and is in compliance with, a written agreement between the applicant and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that outlines all measures to be taken by the applicant to mitigate or prevent adverse effects to the historic property.

See Part I.B.6, 60 FR 51112 (September 29, 1995). When applying for permit coverage, applicants are required to certify in the NOI that they are in compliance with the Part I.B.6 eligibility requirements. Provided there are no other factors limiting permit eligibility, MSGP coverage is then granted 48 hours after the postmark on the envelope used to the mail the NOI.

The September 30, 1998 modification included two revisions of the original MSGP with respect to historic properties. First, EPA amended the original Part I.B.6.(ii) to include a reference to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) because MSGP coverage extends to Tribal lands and in recognition of the central role Tribal governments play in the protection of historic resources. Second, EPA included NHPA guidance and a list of SHPO and THPO addresses in a new Addendum I to the MSGP to assist applicants with the certification process for permit eligibility under this condition.

For the MSGP-2000, EPA is proposing to modify slightly the requirements of the first option for obtaining permit coverage to enhance the protection of historic properties. Permit coverage would only be available if storm water and allowable non-storm water discharges and “discharge-related activities” do not affect historic properties. “Discharge-related activities” are defined to include activities which cause, contribute to, or result in storm water and allowable non-storm water point source discharges, and measures such as the siting, construction and obtained, and is in compliance with, a written agreement between the applicant and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that outlines all measures to be taken by the applicant to mitigate or prevent adverse effects to the historic property. See Part I.B.6, 60 FR 51112 (September 29, 1995). When applying for permit coverage, applicants are required to certify in the NOI that they are in compliance with the Part I.B.6 eligibility requirements. Provided there are no other factors limiting permit eligibility, MSGP coverage is then granted 48 hours after the postmark on the envelope used to the mail the NOI.

The September 30, 1998 modficiation included two revisions of the original MSGP with respect to historic properties. First, EPA amended the original Part I.B.6(ii) to include a reference to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) because MSGP coverage extends to Tribal lands and in recognition of the central role Tribal governments play in the protection of historic resources. Second, EPA included NHPA guidance and a list of SHPO and THPO addresses in a new Addendum I to the MSGP to assist applicants with the certification process for permit eligibility under this condition.

i.e.,

the storm water and non-storm water discharges.

Also, as discussed in Section VI.A.1 below, EPA is proposing to modify the Notice of Intent form to require that operators identify which of the above two options they are using to ensure eligibility for permit coverage under the MSGP. The NHPA guidance has also been modified to reflect the above changes, and appears in Addendum B in today's notice rather than Addendum I.

Facilities seeking coverage under the MSGP which cannot certify compliance with the NHPA requirements must submit individual permit applications to the permitting authority. For facilities already covered by the existing MSGP, the deadline for the individual applications is the same as that for NOIs requesting coverage under the reissued MSGP (December 29, 2000).

C. Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires Federal Agencies such as EPA to ensure, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (also known collectively as the “Services”), that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the Agency (

e.g.,

EPA issued NPDES permits authorizing discharges to waters of the United States) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat of such species (see 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), 50 CFR part 402 and 40 CFR 122.49(c)).

For the 1995 MSGP, EPA conducted formal consultation with the Services which resulted in a joint Service biological opinion issued by the FWS on March 31, 1995, and by the NMFS on April 5, 1995, which concluded that the issuance and operation of the MSGP was not likely to jeopardize the existence of any listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the adverse modification or destruction of any critical habitat.

The existing MSGP contains a number of conditions to protect listed species and critical habitat. Permit coverage is only provided where:

• The storm water discharge(s), and the construction of BMPs to control storm water runoff, are not likely to adversely affect species identified in Addendum H of the permit; or

• The applicant's activity has received previous authorization under the Endangered Species Act and established an environmental baseline that is unchanged; or,

• The applicant is implementing appropriate measures as required by the Director to address adverse effects.

For the MSGP-2000, EPA is proposing to modify the ESA-related requirements for obtaining permit coverage to enhance the protection of listed species. First, permit coverage is only available if storm water and allowable non-storm water discharges and “discharge-related activities” avoid unacceptable effects to listed species. “Discharge-related activities” are defined to include activities which cause, contribute to or result in storm water and allowable non-storm water point source discharges, and measures such as the siting, construction and operation of BMPs to control, reduce or prevent pollution in the discharges. Inclusion of discharge-related activity is for compliance with ESA requirements to consider the effects of activities which are related to the activity which is permitted,

i.e.,

the storm water and non-storm water discharges. NOTE: The permit conditions, NOI requirements and/or related guidance for the final permit are subject to revision based on results of required ESA § 7 consultations with the Services over issuance of the permit.

In addition, operators seeking coverage under the proposed MSGP must certify that they are eligible for coverage under one of the following five options which are provided in Parts 1.2.3.6.3.1 through 5 of the permit:

1. No endangered or threatened species or critical habitat are in proximity to the facility or the point

where authorized discharges reach the receiving water; or

2. In the course of a separate federal action involving the facility (

e.g.,

EPA processing request for an individual NPDES permit, issuance of a CWA Section 404 wetlands dredge and fill permit, etc.), formal or informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of the ESA has been concluded and that consultation:

(a) Addressed the effects of the storm water and allowable non-storm water discharges and discharge-related activities on listed species and critical habitat and

(b) The consultation resulted in either a no jeopardy opinion or a written concurrence by the Service(s) on a finding that the storm water and allowable non-storm water discharges and discharge-related activities are not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat; or

3. The activities are authorized under section 10 of the ESA and that authorization addresses the effects of the storm water and allowable non-storm water discharges and discharge-related activities on listed species and critical habitat; or

4. Using due diligence, the operator has evaluated the effects of the storm water discharges, allowable non-storm water discharges, and discharge-related activities on listed endangered or threatened species and critical habitat and does not have reason to believe listed species or critical habitat would be adversely affected; or

5. The storm water and allowable non-storm water discharges and discharge-related activities were already addressed in another operator's certification of eligibility under Part 1.2.3.6.3.1 through 1.2.3.6.3.4 which included the facility's activities. By certifying eligibility under this Part, a permittee agrees to comply with any measures or controls upon which the other operator's certification was based.

The first four options listed above are similar to the eligibility provisions of the existing MSGP. Option 5 was added to account for situations such as an airport facility where one operator (

e.g.,

the airport authority) may have covered the entire airport through its certification. Option 5 would allow other operators to take advantage of such a certification without repeating the reviews conducted by the first operator. Options 1 and 4 are essentially the two halves of the 1995 MSGP's “unlikely to adversely effect” option. Option 1 would apply to operators who are not adversely affecting endangered species because listed species simply are not in proximity to their facility. Option 4 would apply to operators who have endangered species nearby and must look more closely at potential adverse effects and may need to adopt measures to reduce the risk of adverse effects on listed species or critical habitat. The separation of the two routes to determine that a facility is unlikely to adversely affect listed species, coupled with the new NOI requirement to indicate whether or not the Service was contacted in making the determination will also allow for better oversight of the permit. Under the 1995 permit, there was no way to tell from the NOI information whether the decision on eligibility was due to no species in the county, a discussion with the Service, or a simple unilateral decision by the operator.

Addendum H of the 1995 MSGP provided instructions to assist permittees in determining whether they meet the permit's ESA-related eligibility requirements. For today's proposed MSGP-2000, this guidance has been updated to reflect above requirements and appears as Addendum A. As noted in Section VI.A.1 below, EPA is also proposing to modify the Notice of Intent form to conform with new ESA requirements discussed above.

Addendum H of the 1995 MSGP contained a list of proposed and listed endangered and threatened species that could be affected by the discharges and measures to control pollutants in the discharges. EPA reinitiated and completed formal consultation with the Services for the September 30, 1998 modification of the MSGP. As a result of this consultation and in response to public comments on the modification, EPA updated the species list in Addendum H to include species that were listed or proposed for listing since the Addendum H list was originally compiled on March 31, 1995. EPA also decided to expand the list to include all of the terrestrial (

i.e.,

non-aquatic) listed and proposed species in recognition that those species may be impacted by permitted activities such as the construction and operation of the BMPs. The September 30, 1998 MSGP modification included the species list updated as of July 8, 1998 (63 FR 52494). The species list is also being updated on a regular basis and an electronic copy of the list is available at the Office of Wastewater Management website at “http://www.epa.gov/owm/esalst2.htm”.

To be eligible for coverage under the reissued MSGP, facilities must review the updated list of species and their locations in conjunction with the Addendum A instructions for completing the application requirements under this permit. If an applicant determines that none of the species identified in the updated species list are found in the county in which the facility is located, then there is no likelihood of an adverse effect and they are eligible for permit coverage. Applicants must then certify that their storm water and allowable non-storm water discharges, and their discharge-related activities, are not likely to adversely affect species and will be granted MSGP permit coverage 48 hours after the date of the postmark on the envelope used to mail the NOI form, provided there are no other factors limiting permit eligibility.

If listed species are located in the same county as the facility seeking MSGP coverage, then the applicant must determine whether the species are in proximity to the storm water or allowable non-storm water discharges or discharge-related activities at the facility. A species is in proximity to a storm water or allowable non-storm water discharge when the species is located in the path or down gradient area through which or over which point source discharge flows from industrial activities to the point of discharge into the receiving water, and once discharged into the receiving water, in the immediate vicinity of, or nearby, the discharge point. A species is also in proximity if a species is located in the area of a site where discharge-related activities occur. If an applicant determines there are no species in proximity to the storm water or allowable non-storm water discharges, or discharge-related activities, then there is no likelihood of adversely affecting the species and the applicant is eligible for permit coverage.

If species are in proximity to the storm water or allowable non-storm water discharges or discharge-related activities, as long as they have been considered as part of a previous ESA authorization of the applicant's activity, and the environmental baseline established in that authorization is unchanged, the applicant may be covered under the permit. The environmental baseline generally includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state and private actions that were occurring at the time the initial NPDES authorization and current ESA section 7 action by EPA or any other federal agency was taken. Therefore, if a permit applicant has received previous authorization and nothing has changed or been added to the environmental baseline established in the previous authorization, then

coverage under this permit will be provided.

In the absence of such previous authorization, if species identified in the updated species list are in proximity to the discharges or discharge-related activities, then the applicant must determine whether there is any likely adverse effect upon the species. This is done by the applicant conducting a further examination or investigation, or an alternative procedure, as described in the instructions in Addendum A of the permit. If the applicant determines that there is no likely adverse effect upon the species, then the applicant is eligible for permit coverage. If the applicant determines that there likely is, or will likely be an adverse effect, then the applicant is not eligible for MSGP coverage unless or until they can meet one of the other eligibility conditions.

All dischargers applying for coverage under the MSGP must provide in the application information on the Notice of Intent form: (1) A determination as to whether there are any listed species in proximity to the storm water or allowable non-storm water discharges or discharge related activity, and (2) An indication of which option under Part 1.2.3.6.3 of the MSGP they claim eligibility for permit coverage, and (3) a certification that their storm water and allowable non-storm water discharges and discharge-related activities are not likely to adversely affect listed species, or are otherwise eligible for coverage due to a previous authorization under the ESA. Coverage is contingent upon the applicant's providing truthful information concerning certification and abiding by any conditions imposed by the permit.

Dischargers who cannot determine if they meet one of the endangered species eligibility criteria cannot sign the certification to gain coverage under the MSGP and must apply to EPA for an individual NPDES storm water permit. For facilities already covered by the existing MSGP, the deadline for the individual applications is the same as that for NOIs requesting coverage under the reissued MSGP (December 29, 2000). As appropriate, EPA will conduct ESA section 7 consultation when issuing such individual permits.

Regardless of the above conditions, EPA may require that a permittee apply for an individual NPDES permit on the basis of possible adverse effects on species or critical habitats. Where there are concerns that coverage for a particular discharger is not sufficiently protective of listed species, the Services (as well as any other interested parties) may petition EPA to require that the discharger obtain an individual NPDES permit and conduct an individual section 7 consultation as appropriate.

In addition, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or his/her authorized representative, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (as well as any other interested parties) may petition EPA to require that a permittee obtain an individual NPDES permit. The permittee is also required to make the SWPPP, annual site compliance inspection report, or other information available upon request to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or his/her authorized representative, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director, or his/her authorized representative.

These mechanisms allow for the broadest and most efficient coverage for the permittee while still providing for the most efficient protection of endangered species. They significantly reduce the number of dischargers that must be considered individually and therefore allow the Agency and the Services to focus their resources on those discharges that are indeed likely to adversely affect listed species. Straightforward mechanisms such as these allow applicants more immediate access to permit coverage, and eliminates “permit limbo” for the greatest number of permitted discharges. At the same time it is more protective of endangered species because it allows both agencies to focus on the real problems, and thus, provide endangered species protection in a more expeditious manner.

D. New Storm Water Discharges to Water Quality-Impaired or Water Quality-Limited Receiving Waters

Today's proposal includes a new provision (Part 1.2.3.8) which establishes eligibility conditions with regard to discharges to water quality-limited or water quality-impaired waters. For the purposes of this permit, “water quality-impaired” refers to a stream, lake, estuary, etc. that is not currently meeting its assigned water quality standards. These waters are also referred to as “303(d) waters” due to the requirement under that section of the CWA for States to periodically list all state waters that are not meeting their water quality standards. “Water quality-limited waters” refers to waterbodies for which a State had to develop individual Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), a tool which helps waterbodies meet their water quality standards. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources. Water quality standards are set by States, Territories, and Tribes. They identify the uses for each waterbody, for example, drinking water supply, contact recreation (swimming), and aquatic life support (fishing), and the scientific criteria to support that use. The Clean Water Act, section 303, establishes the water quality standards and TMDL programs.

Prior to submitting a Notice of Intent, any new discharger (see 40 CFR 122.2) to a 303(d) waterbody must be able to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 122.4(i). In essence, you are a new discharger if your facility started discharging after August 13, 1979 and your storm water was not previously permitted. Any discharger to a waterbody for which there is an approved TMDL must confirm that the TMDL allocated a portion of the load for storm water point source discharges. These provisions apply only to discharges containing the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired or the TMDL developed.

Part 1.2.3.8.1 (which applies to new storm water discharges and not to existing discharges) is designed to better ensure compliance with NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.4(i), which include certain special requirements for new discharges into impaired waterbodies. Lists of impaired waterbodies (sometimes referred to as 303(d) waterbodies) may be obtained from appropriate State environmental offices or their internet sites. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.4(i) prohibit new discharges unless it can be shown that:

1. There are sufficient remaining pollutant load allocations to allow for the discharge; and

2. The existing dischargers into that segment are subject to compliance schedules designed to bring the segments into compliance with applicable water quality standards.

Part 1.2.3.8.2 (which applies to both new and existing storm water discharges) is designed to better ensure compliance with NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.4(d), which requires compliance with State water quality standards. The eligibility condition prohibits coverage of new or existing discharges of a particular pollutant where there is a TMDL, unless the discharge is consistent with the TMDL. Lists of waterbodies with TMDLs may be obtained from appropriate State environmental offices or their internet sites and from EPA's TMDL internet site at

http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/index.html.

It should also be noted that

EPA has recently proposed revisions to NPDES regulations pertaining to discharges to impaired receiving waters (64 FR 46058, August 23, 1999). How these revisions will ultimately apply to general permits is unclear at this time. However, the final MSGP may include additional requirements to ensure consistency with the final revisions.

E. Storm Water Discharges Subject to Anti-Degradation Provisions of Water Quality Standards

Part 1.2.3.9 of today's proposed MSGP includes a new provision which clarifies that discharges which do not comply with applicable anti-degradation provisions of State water quality standards are not eligible for coverage under the MSGP. This eligibility condition is designed to better ensure compliance with NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.4(d), which requires compliance with State water quality standards. Anti-degradation provisions may be obtained from the appropriate State environmental office or their internet sites.

F. Storm Water Discharges Previously Covered by an Individual Permit

The 1995 MSGP contained general prohibitions on coverage where a discharge was covered by another NPDES permit (Part I.B.3.d) and where a permit had been terminated other than at the request of the permittee (Part I.B.3.e.). It was therefore possible to obtain coverage by requesting termination of an individual permit and then submitting an NOI for coverage under the MSGP. This could be desirable from both the discharger's and EPA's perspective for a variety of reasons, for example, where a wastewater permit included storm water outfalls, but the wastewater outfalls had been eliminated. Being able to use the general permit would reduce the application cost to the permittee and the administrative burden of permit issuance to the Agency. Today's permit clarifies the conditions under which transfer from an individual permit to this general permit would be acceptable (Part 1.2.3.3.2).

In order to avoid conflict with the anti-backsliding provisions of the CWA, transfer from an individual permit to the MSGP will only be allowed where all of the following conditions are met:

• All wastewater discharges in the individual permit have been eliminated and only storm water discharges and eligible non-storm water discharges remain (

e.g.,

wastewater is now discharged to a municipal sanitary sewer); and

• The individual permit did not contain numeric water quality-based effluent limitations developed for the storm water component of the discharge; and

• The permittee includes any specific BMPs for storm water required under the individual permit in their storm water pollution prevention plan.

• Implementation of a comprehensive pollution prevention plan for the entire facility (as opposed to selected outfalls in an individual permit) and compliance will all other conditions of the MSGP is deemed to be at least as stringent a technology-based permit limit as the conditions of the individual permit. This assumption is only made where the previous permit did not contain any specific water quality-based effluent limitations on storm water discharges (

e.g.,

storm water contained high levels of zinc and the individual permit contained a zinc limit developed to assure compliance with the State water quality criteria).

VI. Summary of Common Permit Requirements

The following section describes the permit conditions common to discharges from all the industrial activities covered by today's proposal. These conditions are largely the same as the conditions of the existing MSGP.

A. Notification Requirements

General permits for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity must require the submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) prior to the authorization of such discharges (see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i), April 2, 1992 (57 FR 11394)). Consistent with these regulatory requirements, today's proposed MSGP establishes NOI requirements. These requirements apply to facilities currently covered by the existing MSGP, as well as new facilities seeking coverage. However, as noted earlier, EPA is proposing to modify the NOI form to allow the discharger, the Agency and the public to more easily determine permit eligibility and the sector-specific conditions that will apply to the facility. The proposed revised NOI form is found in Addendum D of today's proposed MSGP, and is also currently being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information requirements of the revised NOI form are described below:

1. Contents of NOIs

a. An indication of which permit the operator is filing the NOI for (

e.g.,

a facility in New Hampshire would be filing for coverage under permit NHR05*###, a facility located on Navajo Reservation lands in New Mexico under the AZR05*##I permit, a private contractor operating a federal facility in Colorado that is not located on Indian Country lands under the COR05*##F permit, etc.);

b. The name, address, and telephone number of the operator filing the NOI for permit coverage;

c. An indication of whether the owner of the site is a Federal, State, Tribal, private, or other public entity;

d. The name (or other identifier), address, county, and latitude/longitude of the facility for which the NOI is submitted (latitude/longitude will be accepted in either degree-minute-second or decimal format);

e. An indication of whether the facility is located on Indian Country lands;

f. An indication of whether the facility is a federal facility operated by the federal government;

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

h. The name of the municipal operator if the discharge enters a municipal separate storm sewer system prior to discharge to a water of the U.S.;

i. Up to four 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that best represent the principal products produced or services rendered, including hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal activities, land disposal facilities that receive or have received any industrial waste, steam electric power generating facilities, or treatment works treating domestic sewage;

j. Identification of applicable sector(s) in this permit, as designated in Table 1, for facility discharges associated with industrial activity the operator wishes to have covered under this permit;

k. Certification that a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) meeting the requirements of Part 4 has been developed (with a copy of the permit language to the plan);

l. Based on the instructions in Addendum A, whether any listed or proposed threatened or endangered species, or designated critical habitat, are in proximity to the storm water discharges or storm water discharge-related activities to be covered by this permit;

m. Under which Part(s) of Part 1.2.3.6 (Endangered Species) the applicant is certifying eligibility and whether the FWS or NMFS was involved in making the determination of eligibility;

n. Whether any historic property listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is located on the facility or in proximity to the discharge;

o. Under which Part(s) of Part 1.2.3.7 (Historic Properties) the applicant is

certifying eligibility and whether the SHPO or THPO was involved in the determination of eligibility;

p. A signed and dated certification, signed by a authorized representative of the facility as detailed in Part 9.7 that certifies the following:

“I certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand the Part 1.2 eligibility requirements for coverage under the multi-sector storm water general permit including those requirements relating to the protection of endangered or threatened species or critical habitat. To the best of my knowledge, the storm water and allowable non-storm discharges authorized by this permit (and discharged related activities), are not likely and will not likely, adversely affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitat, or are otherwise eligible for coverage under Part 1.2.3.6 of the permit. To the best of my knowledge, I further certify that such discharges and discharge related activities do not have an effect on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register or Historic Places under the National Historic Preservation Act, or are otherwise eligible for coverage under Part 1.2.3.7 of the permit. I understand that continued coverage under the multi-sector storm water general permit is contingent upon maintaining eligibility as provided for in Part 1.2”

The NOI must be signed in accordance with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22. A complete description of these signatory requirements is provided in the instructions accompanying the NOI. Completed NOI forms must be submitted to the Storm Water Notice of Intent (4203), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Under the 1995 MSGP, continued coverage under the general permit (should it expire without a replacement permit being issued) was available provided the permittee applied for the replacement general permit according to the deadlines established in that permit. The new MSGP has clarified this process at Part 9.2.

In the future (but not at the present time), EPA may also allow alternate means of NOI submission (such as electronic submission). An alternate means of NOI submission may be used by operators provided EPA has informed the operator of the acceptability of the alternative.

2. Deadlines

For facilities currently covered by the existing MSGP, the deadline for submission of an NOI requesting coverage under the MSGP-2000 is December 29, 2000 (90 days after expiration of the existing MSGP). For these facilities, the requirements of the existing MSGP are incorporated into the MSGP-2000 and would continue to apply during the interim period subsequent to the expiration of the existing MSGP, but prior to submission of the NOI requesting coverage under the reissued MSGP.

Facilities currently covered by the existing MSGP who cannot immediately determine if they are eligible for coverage under the MSGP-2000 may nevertheless be covered for up to 270 days provided an application for an alternative permit is submitted within 90 days. This interim coverage allows permit coverage while the permittee assesses their eligibility for the MSGP-2000 and, if necessary, still meet the 180 day lead time required for applications for individual permits.

For facilities commencing operations after reissuance of the MSGP, the NOI must be submitted at least two days prior to the commencement of the new industrial activity. New operators of existing facilities must also submit the NOI at least two days prior to assuming operational control at existing facilities.

Dischargers who submit a complete NOI in accordance with the MSGP requirements are authorized to discharge storm water associated with industrial activity two days after the date the NOI is postmarked, unless otherwise notified by EPA. EPA may deny coverage under the MSGP and require submission of an individual NPDES permit application based on a review of the completeness and/or content of the NOI or other information (

e.g.,

Endangered Species Act compliance, National Historic Preservation Act Compliance, water quality information, compliance history, history of spills, etc.). Where EPA requires a discharger authorized under the MSGP to apply for an individual NPDES permit (or an alternative general permit), EPA will notify the discharger in writing that a permit application (or different NOI) is required by an established deadline. Coverage under the MSGP will automatically terminate if the discharger fails to submit the required permit application in a timely manner. Where the discharger does submit a requested permit application, coverage under the MSGP will automatically terminate on the effective date of the issuance or denial of the individual NPDES permit or the alternative general permit as it applies to the individual permittee.

A discharger is not precluded from submitting an NOI at a later date than described above. However, in such instances, EPA may bring appropriate enforcement actions.

3. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Operator Notification

Operators of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity that discharge through a large or medium municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) or a municipal system designated by the Director,

must (upon request of the MS4 operator) submit a copy of the NOI to the municipal operator of the system receiving the discharge. This proposed requirement differs from the existing MSGP which requires that a copy of the NOI be sent to the MS4 operator. The MSGP is proposed to be modified in this regard to reduce paperwork requirements, and in consideration of the fact that most large and medium MS4 operators already have good information concerning the industrial facilities discharging into their MS4s.

The terms large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems (systems serving a population of 100,000 or more) are defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(4) and (7). Some of the cities and counties in which these systems are found are listed in Appendices F, G, H, and I to 40 CFR Part 122. Other municipal systems have been designated by EPA on a case-by-case basis or have brought into the program based upon the 1990 Census.

EPA wishes to ensure a coordinated program between EPA and operators of MS4s for controlling pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity which enter an MS4. Such a coordinated program was intended by EPA's original storm water permit application regulations of November 16, 1990 (47 FR 47990). Additional discussion of this matter can be found in the original proposed MSGP (58 FR 61146).

4. Notice of Termination

Where a discharger is able to eliminate the storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from a facility, the discharger may submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) form (or photocopy thereof) provided by the Director. Today's proposed MSGP also differs from the existing MSGP by requiring that an NOT be submitted within 30 days after one or both of the following two conditions having been met:

a. A new owner/operator has assumed responsibility for the facility; or

b. The permittee has ceased operations at the facility and there no longer are discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity from the facility;

A copy of the NOT and instructions for completing the NOT are included in

Addendum E. The NOT form requires the following information:

a. Name, mailing address, and location of the facility for which the notification is submitted. Where a street address for the site is not available, the location of the approximate center of the site must be described in terms of the latitude and longitude to the nearest 15 seconds, or the section, township and range to the nearest quarter;

b. The name, address and telephone number of the operator addressed by the Notice of Termination;

c. The NPDES permit number for the storm water discharge associated with industrial activity identified by the NOT;

d. An indication of whether the storm water discharges associated with industrial activity have been eliminated or the operator of the discharges has changed; and

e. The following certification:

I certify under penalty of law that all storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from the identified facility that are authorized by an NPDES general permit have been eliminated or that I am no longer the operator of the industrial activity. I understand that by submitting this Notice of Termination I am no longer authorized to discharge storm water associated with industrial activity under this general permit, and that discharging pollutants in storm water associated with industrial activity to waters of the United States is unlawful under the Clean Water Act where the discharge is not authorized by an NPDES permit. I also understand that the submission of this notice of termination does not release an operator from liability for any violations of this permit or the Clean Water Act.

NOTs are to be sent to the Storm Water Notice of Termination (4203), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

The NOT must be signed in accordance with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22. A complete description of these signatory requirements is provided in the instructions accompanying the NOT.

5. Conditional Exclusion for No Exposure

The proposed MSGP includes a special provision (Part 1.5 of the permit) which provides that a facility may discontinue permit coverage if the facility determines that it is eligible for the “no exposure” permit exemption which was created by EPA as part of the promulgation of the Phase II storm water regulations (64 FR 68722). A notice of termination is not required to discontinue permit coverage under these circumstances. However, in accordance with the Phase II regulations, a no exposure certification must be filed with the permitting authority.

It should also be noted that facilities operating under the existing MSGP are eligible, as of the effective date of the Phase II regulations, to submit no exposure certifications immediately if they meet the criteria for no exposure. No exposure certification renewals must be submitted five years from the time they are first submitted (assuming the facility still qualifies for the exemption). If conditions change at a facility such that renewed MSGP coverage is needed, the facility may submit an NOI requesting renewed coverage.

EPA is also requesting comment on whether including a copy of the “No Exposure” form and instructions as an addendum to the permit would be useful enough to outweigh the increase in length of the permit and cost of publication.

B. Special Conditions

The conditions of today's proposed MSGP have been designed to comply with the technology-based standards of the CWA (BAT/BCT). Based on a consideration of the appropriate factors for BAT and BCT requirements, and a consideration of the factors and options for controlling pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, the proposed MSGP lists a set of tailored requirements for developing and implementing storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), and for selected discharges, numeric effluent limitations.

This is same approach as in the existing MSGP.

Section 9.12.2 of the proposed MSGP provides that facilities with storm water discharges associated with industrial activity which, based on an evaluation of site specific conditions, believe that the appropriate conditions of this permit do not adequately represent BAT and BCT requirements for the facility may submit to the Director an individual application (Form 1 and Form 2F). A detailed explanation of the reasons why the conditions of the available general permits do not adequately represent BAT and BCT requirements for the facility as well as any supporting documentation must be included.

Section VIII of the fact sheet for the 1995 MSGP summarized the industry-specific BMP options for controlling pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity for the various industrial sectors covered by the MSGP. Section VIII of today's fact sheet does not repeat the information from the 1995 fact sheet; however, updates are provided as appropriate.

Section VI.B.4 of today's fact sheet discusses the storm water discharges which are subject to numeric effluent limitations. For other discharges covered by the proposed MSGP, the permit conditions reflect EPA's proposed decision to identify a number of BMP and traditional storm water management practices which prevent pollution in storm water discharges as the BAT/BCT level of control for the majority of storm water discharges covered by this permit. The permit conditions applicable to these discharges are not numeric effluent limitations, but rather are flexible requirements for developing and implementing site specific plans to minimize and control pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.

EPA is authorized under 40 CFR 122.44(k)(2) to impose BMPs in lieu of numeric effluent limitations in NPDES permits when the Agency finds numeric effluent limitations to be infeasible. EPA may also impose BMPs which are “reasonably necessary * * * to carry out the purposes of the Act” under 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). Both of these standards for imposing BMPs were recognized in

NRDC

Costle,

568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The conditions in the proposed MSGP are issued under the authority of both of these regulatory provisions. The pollution prevention or BMP requirements in today's proposed permit operate as limitations on effluent discharges that reflect the application of BAT/BCT. This is because the BMPs identified require the use of source control technologies which, in the context of the MSGP, are the best available of the technologies economically achievable (or the equivalent BCT finding). See

NRDC

EPA,

822 F.2d 104, 122-23 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (EPA has substantial discretion to impose nonquantitative permit requirements pursuant to Section 402(a)(1)).

1. Prohibition of Non-Storm Water Discharges

Today's proposal includes basically the same provisions pertaining to non-storm water discharges as the current MSGP. Like the existing MSGP, the proposed MSGP does not authorize non-storm water discharges that are mixed with storm water except as provided below.

The proposed MSGP would authorize one additional non-storm water discharge: mist discharges which originate from cooling towers and which are deposited at an industrial facility and may be discharged. During the term of the existing MSGP, these discharges were brought to the attention of EPA with a request that the discharges be authorized under the reissued MSGP.

The mist discharges would be authorized under the proposed MSGP provided:

a. The permittee has evaluated the potential for the discharges to be contaminated by chemicals used in the cooling tower and determined that the levels of such chemicals in the discharges would not cause or contribute to a violation of an applicable water quality standard; and

b. The permittee has addressed this source of pollutants with appropriate BMPs in the SWPPP.

The other non-storm water discharges that would be authorized under today's proposed MSGP are the same as those in the existing MSGP and include discharges from fire fighting activities; fire hydrant flushings; potable water sources, including waterline flushings; irrigation drainage; lawn watering; routine external building washdown without detergents; pavement washwaters where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred (unless all spilled material has been removed) and where detergents are not used; air conditioning condensate; compressor condensate; springs; uncontaminated ground water; and foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such as solvents that are combined with storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.

To be authorized under the proposed MSGP, these other sources of non-storm water (except flows from fire fighting activities) must be identified in the SWPPP prepared for the facility. (SWPPP requirements are discussed in more detail below). Where such discharges occur, the SWPPP must also identify and ensure the implementation of appropriate pollution prevention measures for the non-storm water component(s) of the discharge.

Today's proposal does not require pollution prevention measures to be identified and implemented for non-storm water flows from fire-fighting activities because these flows will generally be unplanned emergency situations where it is necessary to take immediate action to protect the public.

The prohibition of unpermitted non-storm water discharges in this proposed MSGP ensures that non-storm water discharges (except for those classes of non-storm water discharges that are conditionally authorized in Part 1.2.2.2 of the proposed MSGP) are not inadvertently authorized by the permit. Where a storm water discharge is mixed with non-storm water that is not authorized by today's proposed MSGP or another NPDES permit, the discharger should submit the appropriate application forms (Forms 1, 2C, and/or 2E) to gain permit coverage of the non-storm water portion of the discharge.

2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of Hazardous Substances and Oil

As discussed below, today's proposed MSGP includes the same provisions pertaining to releases of reportable quantities of hazardous substances and oil as the existing MSGP.

a. The proposed MSGP provides that the discharge of hazardous substances or oil from a facility must be eliminated or minimized in accordance with the SWPPP developed for the facility. Where a permitted storm water discharge contains a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reporting quantity established under 40 CFR part 117, or 40 CFR part 302 during a 24-hour period, the following actions must be taken:

(1) Any person in charge of the facility that discharges hazardous substances or oil is required to notify the National Response Center (NRC) (800-424-8802; in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, 202-426-2675) in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 117, and 40 CFR part 302 as soon as they have knowledge of the discharge.

(2) The SWPPP for the facility must be modified within 14 calendar days of knowledge of the release to provide a description of the release, an account of the circumstances leading to the release, and the date of the release. In addition, the plan must be reviewed to identify measures to prevent the reoccurrence of such releases and to respond to such releases, and it must be modified where appropriate.

(3) The permittee must also submit to EPA within 14 calendar days of knowledge of the release a written description of the release (including the type and estimate of the amount of material released), the date that such release occurred, the circumstances leading to the release, and steps to be taken to modify the SWPPP for the facility.

b. Anticipated discharges containing a hazardous substance in an amount equal to or in excess of reporting quantities are those caused by events occurring within the scope of the relevant operating system. Facilities that have more than 1 anticipated discharge per year containing a hazardous substance in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity are required to:

(1) Submit notifications of the first release that occurs during a calendar year (or for the first year of this permit, after submission of an NOI); and

(2) Provide a written description in the SWPPP of the dates on which such releases occurred, the type and estimate of the amount of material released, and the circumstances leading to the releases. In addition, the SWPPP must address measures to minimize such releases.

c. Where a discharge of a hazardous substance or oil in excess of reporting quantities is caused by a non-storm water discharge (

e.g.,

a spill of oil into a separate storm sewer), that discharge is not authorized by the MSGP and the discharger must report the discharge as required under 40 CFR part 110, 40 CFR part 117, or 40 CFR part 302. In the event of a spill, the requirements of section 311 of the CWA and other applicable provisions of sections 301 and 402 of the CWA continue to apply. This approach is consistent with the requirements for reporting releases of hazardous substances and oil that make a clear distinction between hazardous substances typically found in storm water discharges and those associated with spills that are not considered part of a normal storm water discharge (see 40 CFR 117.12(d)(2)(i)).

3. Co-Located Industrial Facilities

Like the existing MSGP, today's proposal includes requirements pertaining to co-located industrial facilities. However, these requirements have been modified from the requirements of the existing MSGP to clarify their applicability. Co-located industrial activities occur when activities being conducted onsite fall into more than one of the categories of the industrial facilities listed in Part 1.2.1 of the proposed MSGP-2000 (

e.g.,

a landfill at a wood treatment facility). Facilities operating under the existing MSGP have sometimes been unclear whether certain limited activities (

e.g.,

minor vehicle maintenance activities at an industrial plant) would trigger the MSGP's requirements regarding co-located activities.

If you have co-located industrial activities on-site that are described in a sector(s) other than your primary sector, you must comply with all other applicable sector-specific conditions found in Part 6 for the co-located industrial activities. The extra sector-specific requirements are applied only to those areas of your facility where the extra-sector activities occur. An activity at a facility is not considered co-located if the activity, when considered separately, does not meet the description of a category of industrial activity covered by the storm water

regulations, and identified by the MSGP-2000 SIC code list. For example, unless you are actually hauling substantial amounts of freight or materials with your own truck fleet or are providing a trucking service to outsiders, simple maintenance of vehicles used at your facility is unlikely to meet the SIC code group 42 description of a motor freight transportation facility. Even though Sector P may not apply, the runoff from your vehicle maintenance facility would likely still be considered storm water associated with industrial activity. As such, your SWPPP must still address the runoff from the vehicle maintenance facility—although not necessarily with the same degree of detail as required by Sector P—but you would not be required to monitor as per Sector P.

In the event there truly are co-located activities at your facility, the proposed MSGP-2000 authorizes, as does the existing MSGP, all storm water discharges provided that your facility complies with all SWPPP and monitoring requirements for each co-located activity. By monitoring the discharges from the different industrial activities, you can better determine the effectiveness of your SWPPP for controlling all major pollutants of concern in your storm water discharges. However, if monitoring for the same parameter is required for more than one sector (and the different industrial activities drain to the same outfall), then only one sample analysis is required for that parameter.

4. Numeric Effluent Limitations

Today's proposal retains the numeric effluent limitations which are included in the existing MSGP, and also includes the effluent limitations guidelines which EPA recently finalized for certain storm water discharges from new and existing hazardous and non-hazardous landfills (65 FR 3007, January 19, 2000). The new effluent limitations guidelines for these landfills are discussed in more detail in the Sections VIII.K and L of this fact sheet (Special Requirements for Discharges Associated with Industry Activities).

The proposed MSGP-2000 retains the numeric effluent limitations from the existing MSGP for the following discharges: Coal pile runoff (including runoff from steam electric power plants subject to 40 CFR part 423 requirements), discharges from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing (40 CFR part 418), asphalt paving and roofing emulsions (40 CFR part 443), cement manufacturing materials storage pile runoff (40 CFR part 411), and discharges resulting from the spray down of lumber and wood products storage yards (wet decking) (40 CFR part 429). In addition, the proposed MSGP authorizes mine dewatering discharges from construction sand and gravel, industrial sand, and crushed stone facilities (40 CFR part 436) in EPA Regions 1, 2, 6, 10 and Arizona. The actual numeric effluent limitations can be found in Part 6 of the proposed MSGP.

5. Compliance With Water Quality Standards

The existing MSGP does not specifically address compliance with water quality standards (WQS), other than to exclude from coverage discharges which may contribute to an exceedance of WQS. Today's proposed MSGP includes the same restriction on eligibility, and in Part 3.3 also includes certain requirements if exceedances occur for discharges covered by the MSGP. If a discharge authorized under the proposed MSGP is later discovered to cause, or have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation of a WQS, the permitting authority will inform the permittee of the violation. The permittee must then take all necessary actions to ensure future discharges do not cause or contribute to the violation of WQS, and document these actions in the SWPPP. If violations remain or reoccur, coverage under the MSGP may be terminated by the permitting authority and an alternate permit issued. The proposed MSGP also clarifies that compliance with this requirement does not preclude enforcement actions as provided by the Clean Water Act for the underlying violation.

C. Common Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements

Like the existing MSGP, today's proposal requires that all facilities which intend to be covered by the MSGP for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity prepare and implement a SWPPP. The MSGP addresses pollution prevention plan requirements for a number of categories of industries. Following below is a discussion of the common permit requirements for all industries; special requirements for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity through large and medium MS4s; special requirements for facilities subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements; and special requirements for facilities with outdoor salt storage piles. These are the permit requirements which apply to discharges associated with any of the industrial activities covered by today's proposed permit. These common requirements may be amended or further clarified in the industry-specific SWPPP requirements which are found in Part 6 of the proposed MSGP. These industry-specific requirements are additive for facilities where co-located industrial activities occur.

The pollution prevention approach in today's proposed MSGP focuses on two major objectives: (1) To identify sources of pollution potentially affecting the quality of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from the facility; and (2) Ensure implementation of measures to minimize and control pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from the facility.

The SWPPP requirements in today's proposed MSGP are intended to facilitate a process whereby the operator of the industrial facility thoroughly evaluates potential pollution sources at the site and selects and implements appropriate measures designed to prevent or control the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. The process involves the following four steps: (1) Formation of a team of qualified plant personnel who will be responsible for preparing the plan and assisting the plant manager in its implementation; (2) assessment of potential storm water pollution sources; (3) selection and implementation of appropriate management practices and controls; and (4) periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan to prevent storm water contamination.

EPA believes the pollution prevention approach is the most environmentally sound and cost-effective way to control the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff from industrial facilities. This position is supported by the results of a comprehensive technical survey EPA completed in 1979.

The survey found that two classes of management practices are generally employed at industries to control the nonroutine discharge of pollutants from sources such as storm water runoff, drainage from raw material storage and waste disposal areas, and discharges from places where spills or leaks have occurred. The first class of management practices includes those that are low in cost, applicable to a broad class of industries and substances, and widely considered essential to a good pollution control program. Some examples of practices in this class are good housekeeping, employee training, and spill response and prevention

procedures. The second class includes management practices that provide a second line of defense against the release of pollutants. This class addresses containment, mitigation, and cleanup. Since publication of the 1979 survey, EPA has imposed management practices and controls in NPDES permits on a case-by-case basis. The Agency also has continued to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of such practices,

as well as the techniques used to prevent and contain oil spills.

Experience with these practices and controls has shown that they can be used in permits to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges in a cost-effective manner. In keeping with both the present and previous administration's objective to attain environmental goals through pollution prevention, pollution prevention has been and continues to be the cornerstone of the NPDES permitting program for storm water. EPA has developed guidance entitled “Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices,” September 1992, to assist permittees in developing and implementing pollution prevention measures.

See “Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities,” EPA, September 1992, EPA-832-R-92-006.

For example, see “Best Management Practices: Useful Tools for Cleaning Up,” Thron, H. Rogoshewski, P., 1982, Proceedings of the 1982 Hazardous Material Spills Conference; “The Chemical Industries’ Approach to Spill Prevention,” Thompson, C., Goodier, J. 1980, Proceedings of the 1980 National Conference of Control of Hazardous Materials Spills; a series of EPA memorandum entitled “Best Management Practices in NPDES Permits—Information Memorandum,” 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988; Review of Emergency Systems: Report to Congress,” EPA, 1988; and “Analysis of Implementing Permitting Activities for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity,” EPA, 1991.

See for example, “The Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Program Task Force Report,” EPA, 1988; and “Guidance Manual for the Development of an Accidental Spill Prevention Program,” prepared by SAIC for EPA, 1986.

Note:

The discussions of the SWPPP requirements are grouped in subject areas and do not follow the exact order of the permit conditions.

1. Pollution Prevention Team (Part 4.2.1)

As a first step in the process of developing and implementing a SWPPP, permittees are required to identify a qualified individual or team of individuals to be responsible for developing the plan and assisting the facility or plant manager in its implementation. When selecting members of the team, the plant manager should draw on the expertise of all relevant departments within the plant to ensure that all aspects of plant operations are considered when the plan is developed. The plan must clearly describe the responsibilities of each team member as they relate to specific components of the plan. In addition to enhancing the quality of communication between team members and other personnel, clear delineation of responsibilities will ensure that every aspect of the plan is addressed by a specified individual or group of individuals. Pollution Prevention Teams may consist of one individual where appropriate (

e.g.,

in certain small businesses with limited storm water pollution potential).

2. Description of the Facility and Potential Pollution Sources (Part 4.2.2)

Each SWPPP must describe activities, materials, and physical features of the facility that may contribute significant amounts of pollutants to storm water runoff or, during periods of dry weather, result in pollutant discharges through the separate storm sewers or storm water drainage systems that drain the facility. This assessment of storm water pollution risk will support subsequent efforts to identify and set priorities for necessary changes in materials, materials management practices, or site features, as well as aid in the selection of appropriate structural and nonstructural control techniques. Some operators may find that significant amounts of pollutants are running onto the facility property. Such operators should identify and address the contaminated runon in the SWPPP. If the runon cannot be addressed or diverted by the permittee, the permitting authority should be notified. If necessary, the permitting authority may require the operator of the adjacent facility to obtain a permit.

Part 6 of the proposed MSGP includes industry-specific requirements for the various industry sectors covered by today's proposed permit. All SWPPPs generally must describe the following elements:

a. Description of the Facility Site and Receiving Waters/Wetlands (Parts 4.2.2 & 4.2.3):

The plan must contain a map of the site that shows the location of outfalls covered by the permit (or by other NPDES permits), the pattern of storm water drainage, an indication of the types of discharges contained in the drainage areas of the outfalls, structural features that control pollutants in runoff,

surface water bodies (including wetlands), places where significant materials

are exposed to rainfall and runoff, and locations of major spills and leaks that occurred in the 3 years prior to the date of the submission of an NOI to be covered under this permit. The map also must show areas where the following activities take place: Fueling, vehicle and equipment maintenance and/or cleaning, loading and unloading, material storage (including tanks or other vessels used for liquid or waste storage), material processing, and waste disposal. For areas of the facility that generate storm water discharges with a reasonable potential to contain significant amounts of pollutants, the map must indicate the probable direction of storm water flow and the pollutants likely to be in the discharge. Flows with a significant potential to cause soil erosion also must be identified. In order to increase the readability of the map, the inventory of the types of discharges contained in each outfall may be kept as an attachment to the site map.

Nonstructural features such as grass swales and vegetative buffer strips also should be shown.

Significant materials include, but are not limited to the following: Raw materials; fuels; solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets; finished materials, such as metallic products; raw materials used in food processing or production; hazardous substances designated under Section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); any chemical the facility is required to report pursuant to EPCRA section 313; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste products, such as ashes, slag, and sludge that have the potential to be released with storm water discharges. (See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(8)).

b. Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources (Part 4.2.4):

The description of potential pollution sources culminates in a narrative assessment of the risk potential that sources of pollution pose to storm water quality. This assessment should clearly point to activities, materials, and physical features of the facility that have a reasonable potential to contribute significant amounts of pollutants to storm water. Any such activities, materials, or features must be addressed by the measures and controls subsequently described in the plan. In conducting the assessment, the facility operator must consider the following activities: Loading and unloading operations; outdoor storage activities; outdoor manufacturing or processing activities; significant dust or particulate generating processes; and onsite waste disposal practices. The assessment must list any significant pollution sources at the site and identify the pollutant parameter or parameters (

i.e.,

biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, etc.) associated with each source.

c. Significant Spills and Leaks (Part 4.2.5):

The plan must include a list of any significant spills and leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants that occurred in

the 3 years prior to the date of the submission of an NOI to be covered under this permit. Significant spills include, but are not limited to, releases of oil or hazardous substances in excess of quantities that are reportable under section 311 of CWA (see 40 CFR 110.10 and 40 CFR 117.21) or section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (see 40 CFR 302.4). Significant spills may also include releases of oil or hazardous substances that are not in excess of reporting requirements and releases of materials that are not classified as oil or a hazardous substance.

The listing should include a description of the causes of each spill or leak, the actions taken to respond to each release, and the actions taken to prevent similar such spills or leaks in the future. This effort will aid the facility operator as she or he examines existing spill prevention and response procedures and develops any additional procedures necessary to fulfill the requirements set forth in Parts 4 and 6 of the proposed permit.

d. Allowable and Prohibited Non-storm Water Discharges (Part 4.4):

Each SWPPP must include a certification, signed by an authorized individual, that discharges from the site have been tested or evaluated for the presence of non-storm water discharges. The certification must describe possible significant sources of non-storm water, the results of any test and/or evaluation conducted to detect such discharges, the test method or evaluation criteria used, the dates on which tests or evaluations were performed, and the onsite drainage points directly observed during the test or evaluation. Acceptable test or evaluation techniques include dye tests, television surveillance, observation of outfalls or other appropriate locations during dry weather, water balance calculations, and analysis of piping and drainage schematics.

In general, smoke tests should not be used for evaluating the discharge of non-storm water to a separate storm sewer as many sources of non-storm water typically pass through a trap that would limit the effectiveness of the smoke test.

Except for flows that originate from fire fighting activities, sources of non-storm water that are specifically identified in the permit as being eligible for authorization under the general permit must be identified in the plan. SWPPPs must identify and ensure the implementation of appropriate pollution prevention measures for the non-storm water discharge.

EPA recognizes that certification may not be feasible where facility personnel do not have access to an outfall, manhole, or other point of access to the conduit that ultimately receives the discharge. In such cases, the plan must describe why certification was not feasible. Permittees who are not able to certify that discharges have been tested or evaluated must notify the Director in accordance with Part 4.4 of the proposed MSGP.

e. Sampling Data (Part 4.2.6):

Any existing data on the quality or quantity of storm water discharges from the facility must be described in the plan, including data collected for Part 2 of the group application process. These data may be useful for locating areas that have contributed pollutants to storm water. The description should include a discussion of the methods used to collect and analyze the data. Sample collection points should be identified in the plan and shown on the site map.

3. Selection and Implementation of Storm Water Controls (Part 4.2.7,

et al.

)

Following completion of the source identification and assessment phase, the permit requires the permittee to evaluate, select, and describe the pollution prevention measures, BMPs, and other controls that will be implemented at the facility. BMPs include processes, procedures, schedules of activities, prohibitions on practices, and other management practices that prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff.

EPA emphasizes the implementation of pollution prevention measures and BMPs that reduce possible pollutant discharges at the source. Source reduction measures include, among others, preventive maintenance, chemical substitution, spill prevention, good housekeeping, training, and proper materials management. Where such practices are not appropriate to a particular source or do not effectively reduce pollutant discharges, EPA supports the use of source control measures and BMPs such as material segregation or covering, water diversion, and dust control. Like source reduction measures, source control measures and BMPs are intended to keep pollutants out of storm water. The remaining classes of BMPs, which involve recycling or treatment of storm water, allow the reuse of storm water or attempt to lower pollutant concentrations prior to discharge.

The SWPPP must discuss the reasons each selected control or practice is appropriate for the facility and how each will address one or more of the potential pollution sources identified in the plan. The plan also must include a schedule specifying the time or times during which each control or practice will be implemented. In addition, the plan should discuss ways in which the controls and practices relate to one another and, when taken as a whole, produce an integrated and consistent approach for preventing or controlling potential storm water contamination problems. The permit requirements included for the various industry sectors in Part 6 of today's proposed MSGP generally require that the portion of the plan that describes the measures and controls address the following minimum components.

When “minimize/reduce” is used relative to SWPPP measures, EPA means to consider and implement BMPs that will result in an improvement over the baseline conditions as it relates to the levels of pollutants identified in storm water discharges with due consideration to economic feasibility and effectiveness.

a. Nonstructural Controls

• Good Housekeeping. Good housekeeping involves using practical, cost-effective methods to identify ways to maintain a clean and orderly facility and keep contaminants out of separate storm sewers. It includes establishing protocols to reduce the possibility of mishandling chemicals or equipment and training employees in good housekeeping techniques. These protocols must be described in the plan and communicated to appropriate plant personnel.

• Minimizing Exposure. Where practicable, protecting potential pollutant sources from exposure to storm water is an important control option. Pollutants that are never allowed to contaminate storm water do not require development of “treatment” type BMPs. Elimination of all exposure to storm water may also make the facility for the “No Exposure Certification” exclusion from permitting at 40 CFR 122.26(g)

• Preventive Maintenance. Permittees must develop a preventive maintenance program that involves regular inspection and maintenance of storm water management devices and other equipment and systems. The program description should identify the devices, equipment, and systems that will be inspected; provide a schedule for inspections and tests; and address appropriate adjustment, cleaning, repair, or replacement of devices, equipment, and systems. For storm water management devices such as catch basins and oil/water separators, the preventive maintenance program should provide for periodic removal of debris to ensure that the devices are

operating efficiently. For other equipment and systems, the program should reveal and enable the correction of conditions that could cause breakdowns or failures that may result in the release of pollutants.

• Spill Prevention and Response Procedures. Based on an assessment of possible spill scenarios, permittees must specify appropriate material handling procedures, storage requirements, containment or diversion equipment, and spill cleanup procedures that will minimize the potential for spills and in the event of a spill enable proper and timely response. Areas and activities that typically pose a high risk for spills include loading and unloading areas, storage areas, process activities, and waste disposal activities. These activities and areas, and their accompanying drainage points, must be described in the plan. For a spill prevention and response program to be effective, employees should clearly understand the proper procedures and requirements and have the equipment necessary to respond to spills.

• Routine Inspections. In addition to the comprehensive site evaluation, facilities are required to conduct periodic inspections of designated equipment and areas of the facility. Industry-specific requirements for such inspections, if any, are set forth in Part 6 of the proposed MSGP. When required, qualified personnel must be identified to conduct inspections at appropriate intervals specified in the plan. A set of tracking or follow-up procedures must be used to ensure that appropriate actions are taken in response to the inspections. Records of inspections must be maintained. These periodic inspections are different from the comprehensive site evaluation, even though the former may be incorporated into the latter. Equipment, area, or other inspections are typically visual and are normally conducted on a regular basis,

e.g.,

daily inspections of loading areas. Requirements for such periodic inspections are specific to each industrial sector in today's permit, whereas the comprehensive site compliance evaluation is required of all industrial sectors. Area inspections help ensure that storm water pollution prevention measures (

e.g.,

BMPs) are operating and properly maintained on a regular basis. The comprehensive site evaluation is intended to provide an overview of the entire facility's pollution prevention activities. Refer to Part VI.C.3.h. below for more information on the comprehensive site evaluation.

• Employee Training. The SWPPP must describe a program for informing personnel at all levels of responsibility of the components and goals of the SWPPP. The training program should address topics such as good housekeeping, materials management, and spill response procedures. Where appropriate, contractor personnel also must be trained in relevant aspects of storm water pollution prevention. A schedule for conducting training must be provided in the plan. Several sections in Part 6 of today's proposed MSGP specify a minimum frequency for training of once per year. Others indicate that training is to be conducted at an appropriate interval. EPA recommends that facilities conduct training annually at a minimum. However, more frequent training may be necessary at facilities with high turnover of employees or where employee participation is essential to the storm water pollution prevention plan.

b. Structural Controls

• Sediment and Erosion Control. The SWPPP must identify areas that, due to topography, activities, soils, cover materials, or other factors have a high potential for significant soil erosion. The plan must identify measures that will be implemented to limit erosion in these areas.

• Management of Runoff. The plan must contain a narrative evaluation of the appropriateness of traditional storm water management practices (i.e., practices other than those that control pollutant sources) that divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise manage storm water runoff so as to reduce the discharge of pollutants. Appropriate measures may include, among others, vegetative swales, collection and reuse of storm water, inlet controls, snow management, infiltration devices, and wet detention/retention basins.

c. Example BMPs:

Part 4.2.7.2.2 includes a list of example BMPs that could be considered for use in a SWPPP, for example: Detention structures (including wet ponds); storm water retention structures; flow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions; infiltration of runoff onsite; and sequential systems (which combine several practices). These examples are not intended to limit the creativity of facility operators in developing alternative BMPs or applications for BMPs that increase cost effectiveness.

d. Selection of Controls:

Based on the results of the evaluation, the plan must identify practices that the permittee determines are reasonable and appropriate for the facility. The plan also should describe the particular pollutant source area or activity to be controlled by each storm water management practice. Reasonable and appropriate practices must be implemented and maintained according to the provisions prescribed in the plan.

In selecting storm water management measures, it is important to consider the potential effects of each method on other water resources, such as ground water. Although storm water pollution prevention plans primarily focus on storm water management, facilities must also consider potential ground water pollution problems and take appropriate steps to avoid adversely impacting ground water quality. For example, if the water table is unusually high in an area, an infiltration pond may contaminate a ground water source unless special preventive measures are taken. Under EPA's July 1991 Ground Water Protection Strategy, States are encouraged to develop Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP). Efforts to control storm water should be compatible with State ground water objectives as reflected in CSGWPPs.

e. Other Controls:

Today's proposed MSGP includes a new requirement that no solid materials, including floating debris may be discharged to waters of the United States, except as authorized by a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, off-site tracking of raw, final, or waste materials or sediment, and the generation of dust must be minimized. Tracking or blowing of raw, final, or waste materials from areas of no exposure to exposed areas must be minimized. These requirements are similar to requirements included in EPA's construction general storm water permit (63 FR 7858, February 17, 1998) which EPA believes would be appropriate for industrial facilities as well.

f. Maintenance (Part 4.3):

All BMPs identified in the SWPPP must be maintained in effective operating condition.

g. Controls for Allowable Non-Storm Water (Part 4.4.2):

Where an allowable non-storm water has been identified, appropriate controls for that discharge must be included in the permit. In many cases, the same types of controls for contaminated storm water would suffice, but the nature and volume of potential pollutants in the non-storm water discharges must be taken into consideration in selection of controls.

h. Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation (Part 4.9):

Today's proposed MSGP requires that the SWPPP describe the scope and content of the comprehensive site evaluations that qualified personnel will conduct to (1)

confirm the accuracy of the description of potential pollution sources contained in the plan, (2) determine the effectiveness of the plan, and (3) assess compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Note that the comprehensive site evaluations are not the same as periodic or other inspections described for certain industries in Section VI.C.3.d of this fact sheet. However, in the instances when frequencies of inspections and the comprehensive site compliance evaluation overlap they may be combined allowing for efficiency, as long as the requirements for both types of inspections are met. The plan must indicate the frequency of comprehensive evaluations which must be at least once a year, except where comprehensive site evaluations are shown in the plan to be impractical for inactive mining sites, due to remote location and inaccessibility

. The individual or individuals who will conduct the comprehensive site evaluation must be identified in the plan and should be members of the pollution prevention team. Material handling and storage areas and other potential sources of pollution must be visually inspected for evidence of actual or potential pollutant discharges to the drainage system. Inspectors also must observe erosion controls and structural storm water management devices to ensure that each is operating correctly. Equipment needed to implement the SWPPP, such as that used during spill response activities, must be inspected to confirm that it is in proper working order.

Where annual site inspections are shown in the plan to be impractical for inactive mining sites, due to remote location and inaccessibility, site inspections must be conducted at least once every 3 years.

The results of each comprehensive site evaluation must be documented in a report signed by an authorized company official. The report must describe the scope of the comprehensive site evaluation, the personnel making the comprehensive site evaluation, the date(s) of the comprehensive site evaluation, and any major observations relating to implementation of the SWPPP. Comprehensive site evaluation reports must be retained for at least 3 years after the date of the evaluation. Based on the results of each comprehensive site evaluation, the description in the plan of potential pollution sources and measures and controls must be revised as appropriate within 2 weeks after each comprehensive site evaluation, unless indicated otherwise in Part 6 of the permit. Changes in procedural operations must be implemented on the site in a timely manner for non-structural measures and controls not more than 12 weeks after completion of the comprehensive site evaluation. Procedural changes that require construction of structural measures and controls are allowed up to 3 years for implementation. In both instances, an extension may be requested from the Director.

i. Applicable State, Tribal, or Local Plans (Part 4.8):

The SWPPP must be consistent with any applicable requirements of State, Tribal, or Local storm water, waste disposal, sanitary sewer or septic system regulations to the extent these apply to a facility and are more stringent than the requirements of this permit.

j. Documentation of Permit Eligibility with Regards to ESA and NHPA Requirements (Parts 4.5 & 4.6):

To better ensure compliance with the requirements of the ESA and NHPA, Parts 4.5 and 4.6 of today's proposed MSGP require that documentation be included with the SWPPP demonstrating permit eligibility with regards to the requirements of the ESA and NHPA. The following information would be required for the ESA:

• Information on whether listed endangered or threatened species, or critical habitat, are found in proximity to the facility;

• Whether such species may be affected by the storm water discharges or storm water discharge-related activities;

• Results of the Addendum A endangered species screening determinations; and

• A description of measures necessary to protect listed endangered or threatened species, or critical habitat, including any terms or conditions that are imposed under the eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.6. The proposed MSGP notes that discharges from facilities which fail to describe and implement such measures are ineligible for coverage under the permit.

The following information would be required for the NHPA determination:

• Information on whether the storm water discharges or storm water discharge-related activities would have an affect on a property that is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places;

• Where effects may occur, any written agreements which have been made with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, or other Tribal leader to mitigate those effects;

• Results of the Addendum B historic places screening determinations; and

• A description of measures necessary to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on places listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places, including any terms or conditions that are imposed under the eligibility requirements of Part 1.2.3.7 of this permit. The proposed MSGP notes that discharges from facilities which fail to describe and implement such measures are ineligible for coverage under the permit.

k. Keeping a Copy of the Permit with the SWPPP (Part 4.7):

A new requirement to have a copy of the permit language in the SWPPP has been added to today's permit. The “confirmation” letter received from the NOI Processing Center is not the permit; it is essentially only the equivalent of a “receipt” for a facility's “registration” (NOI) to use the general permit. Since determining permit eligibility and preparing a SWPPP is required prior to obtaining permit coverage, a copy of the permit would be needed anyway. Requiring a copy of the permit in the SWPPP ensures that facility operators, and not just whoever prepared the SWPPP, will have ready access to all permit requirements.

l. Recordkeeping and Keeping the SWPPP Current (Parts 4.9.4, 4.10, et al.):

Records must be kept with the SWPPP documenting the status and effectiveness of plan implementation. At a minimum, records must address results of the annual Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluations, routine facility inspections, spills, monitoring, and maintenance activities. The plan also must describe a system that enables timely reporting of storm water management-related information to appropriate plant personnel. Inspectors or other enforcement officers will ask for records documenting permit compliance during inspections or facility compliance reviews.

The SWPPP must be updated whenever there is a change at the facility that would significantly affect the discharges authorized under the MSGP. The SWPPP must also be updated whenever an inspection by the permittee or by local, state, tribal, or federal officials indicates a portion of the SWPPP is proving to be ineffective in controlling storm water discharge quality.

m. Signature, Plan Review, and Access to the SWPPP (Part 4.11):

The SWPPP must be signed and certified in accordance with Part 7 of the permit. A copy of the SWPPP must be kept on site at the facility or locally available for the use of the Director, a State, Tribe, or

local agency (

e.g.,

MS4 operator) at the time of an onsite inspection. The SWPPP must also be made available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service upon request. Facilities are encouraged, but not required, to make the SWPPP directly available to the public for viewing during normal business hours. Since SWPPPs are living documents that change over time, access to the current version of the SWPPP is critical in assessing permit compliance.

The Director may notify you at any time that your SWPPP does not meet one or more of the minimum requirements of this permit. The notification will identify provisions of the permit which are not being met, as well as the required modifications. Required changes must be made within thirty (30) calendar days and a written certification submitted to the Director confirming that the changes were made.

D. Special Requirements

1. Special Requirements for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity From Facilities Subject to EPCRA Section 313 Requirements (Part 4.12)

Today's proposal replaces the special requirements of the existing MSGP for certain permittees subject to reporting requirements under section 313 of the EPCRA (also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)) with a requirement to identify areas with these pollutants. EPCRA section 313 requires operators of certain facilities that manufacture (including import), process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals to report annually their releases of those chemicals to any environmental media. Listed toxic chemicals include more than 500 chemicals and chemical classes listed at 40 CFR part 372 (including the recently added chemicals published November 30, 1994).

By requiring identification of EPCRA 313 chemicals in the summary of potential pollutant sources under the Pollution Prevention Plan (Part 4.2.4), the facility operator is then required to develop appropriate storm water controls for such areas (Part 4.2.7). EPA expects that many controls for EPCRA chemicals will continue to be driven by other state and federal environmental regulations such as Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans required under section 311 of the CWA,

etc.

as long as such a requirement is incorporated into the SWPPP.

This reduction in permit complexity by eliminating redundant requirements was requested by members of the regulated community. The public is specifically requested to comment on this new approach to dealing with EPCRA chemicals exposed to storm water.

2. Special Requirements for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity From Salt Storage Facilities

Today's proposal retains the same special requirements as the existing MSGP for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from salt storage facilities. Storage piles of salt used for deicing or other commercial or industrial purposes must be enclosed or covered to prevent exposure to precipitation, except for exposure resulting from adding or removing materials from the pile. This requirement only applies to runoff from storage piles discharged to waters of the United States. Facilities that collect all of the runoff from their salt piles and reuse it in their processes or discharge it subject to a separate NPDES permit do not need to enclose or cover their piles. Permittees must comply with this requirement as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years from the date of permit issuance.

These special requirements have been included in today's permit based on human health and aquatic effects resulting from storm water runoff from salt storage piles compounded with the prevalence of salt storage piles across the United States.

3. Consistency With Other Plans

SWPPPs may reference the existence of other plans for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans developed for the facility under section 311 of the CWA or BMP programs otherwise required by an NPDES permit for the facility as long as such requirement is incorporated into the SWPPP.

E. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

The proposed MSGP-2000 retains basically the same monitoring requirements as the existing MSGP. However, EPA also recognizes the concerns that have been raised in determining the effectiveness of a facility's SWPPP regarding the usefulness of these monitoring requirements (particularly analytical monitoring) and whether facility resources are being diverted away from other activities, such as more effective implementation of the SWPPPs, which might provide greater environmental benefits. In view of such concerns, EPA is specifically requesting comments on these monitoring requirements and whether better alternatives are available for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the industrial storm water pollution control program.

One alternative which has been suggested is the submission of an annual report to EPA describing a permittee's storm water pollution control activities during the previous year. The existing MSGP already requires that permittees conduct periodic facility inspections and prepare inspection reports which are retained as part of the SWPPPs. The MSGP also sets forth certain basic and industry-specific requirements for the inspections and establishes the minimum inspection frequencies. The preparation of an annual report could conceivably enhance the pollution control program at an industrial facility by requiring a more formal review of the program than required by the existing MSGP. Inspection frequencies might also be increased as compared to the requirements of the existing MSGP. The submission of an annual report would also provide EPA and interested members of the public with readily available information from which to evaluate the pollution control program of a given facility. EPA is requesting comments on the merits of submitting an annual report as an alternative to analytical monitoring, including the type of information to be submitted and level of detail to be required.

EPA is also interested in receiving comments on other alternatives to the monitoring requirements of the existing MSGP. One possibility would be group monitoring, in which a representative group of facilities within a sector would monitor (similar to the group permit applications for the original MSGP). Yet another possibility would be watershed monitoring, in which industrial facilities in a given area would cooperate among themselves, or with other dischargers, in a regional watershed monitoring program which would focus on receiving water impacts.

In addition, EPA is requesting comments on whether alternate test methods should be allowed (such as the field test methods which were allowed for Part 1 of the permit applications for municipal separate storm sewer systems) rather than test methods approved under 40 CFR part 136. A number of field test options exist including colorimetric test kits, titrimetric test kits and spectrophotometric field test instruments. Test accuracy, according to industry literature, typically ranges from 0.1 to 20%. Field test methods are

available for all the parameters in the existing MSGP except BOD5, Cd, Mg, Hg, Se and TSS. Of these parameters, however, only TSS is a commonly monitored parameter in the existing MSGP. For TSS, another monitoring option would be transparency tubes which are currently being used in some areas to assess turbidity and TSS. These tubes consist of long narrow plastic tubes in which a sample is placed. Like a Secchi disc, the tube measures turbidity by the length of the tube through which the bottom of the tube cannot be seen. These field test methods are typically cheaper and easier to use than methods approved under 40 CFR part 136, and EPA is requesting comments on whether such methods are appropriate for the industrial storm water program.

EPA is also interested in receiving comments on the role of alternate environmental indicators in the industrial storm water program such as those discussed in the publication entitled “Environmental Indicators to Assess Stormwater Control Programs and Practices” (Clayton, R. and W. Brown, 1996, Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring, MD).

Another alternative to the existing monitoring requirements which has been suggested is to limit the monitoring requirements to discharges to impaired waterbodies, such as those on the section 303(d) list, where additional pollution control efforts are most clearly needed. EPA also welcomes any other suggestions for alternatives to the monitoring requirements of the existing MSGP.

The MSGP (as proposed) includes three general types of monitoring: Analytical monitoring or chemical monitoring; compliance monitoring for effluent guidelines compliance, and visual examinations of storm water discharges. A general description of each of these types of monitoring which was provided with the original MSGP is repeated below.

Analytical monitoring requirements involve laboratory chemical analyses of samples collected by the permittee. The results of the analytical monitoring are quantitative concentration values for different pollutants, which can be easily compared to the results from other sampling events, other facilities, or to national benchmarks. Section VI.E.1 below describes the proposed analytical monitoring requirements and the process and criteria by which an industry sector or subsector was selected for analytical monitoring. Compliance monitoring requirements are imposed under today's proposed permit to ensure that discharges subject to numeric effluent limitations under the storm water effluent limitations guidelines are in compliance with those limitations. The compliance monitoring requirements are discussed in Section VI.E.2.

Visual examinations of storm water discharges are the least burdensome type of monitoring requirement under the proposed MSGP. Visual examinations are described in Section VI.E.8.

Actual monitoring requirements for a given facility under the permit vary depending upon the industrial activities that occur at a facility and the results of the industry-supplied discharge characterization data that was used to develop the original MSGP. Part 5 of the proposed MSGP sets forth the common monitoring requirements which apply to all sectors; the industrial-specific requirements are found in Part 6 of the proposed MSGP. These are minimum monitoring requirements and a permittee may choose to conduct additional sampling to acquire more data to improve the statistical validity of the results. Through increased analytical or visual monitoring the permittee may be able to better ascertain the effectiveness of their SWPPP.

1. Analytical Monitoring Requirements

The categories of facilities subject to analytical monitoring in the proposed MSGP are noted in Table 1 of this fact sheet. The MSGP requires analytical monitoring for the industry sectors or subsectors that demonstrated in the group application data a potential to discharge pollutants at concentrations of concern, or, in certain State-specific cases, to satisfy those States' requirements. The data submitted with the group permit applications were reviewed by EPA to determine the industry sectors and subsectors listed in Table 1 of this fact sheet that are to be subject to analytical monitoring requirements. First, EPA divided the Part 1 and Part 2 application data by the industry sectors listed in Table 1. Where a sector was found to contain a wide range of industrial activities or potential pollutant sources, it was further subdivided into the industry subsectors listed in Table 1. Next, EPA reviewed the information submitted in Part 1 of the group applications regarding the industrial activities, significant materials exposed to storm water, and the material management measures employed. This information helped identify potential pollutants that may be present in the storm water discharges. Then, EPA entered into a database, the sampling data submitted in Part 2 of the group applications. That data was arrayed according to industrial sector and subsector for the purposes of determining when analytical monitoring would be appropriate.

To conduct a comparison of the results of the statistical analyses to determine when analytical monitoring would be required, EPA established “benchmark” concentrations for the pollutant parameters on which monitoring results had been received. The “benchmarks” are the pollutant concentrations above which EPA determined represents a level of concern. The level of concern is a concentration at which a storm water discharge could potentially impair, or contribute to impairing water quality or affect human health from ingestion of water or fish. The benchmarks are also viewed by EPA as a level, that if below, a facility represents little potential for water quality concern. As such, the benchmarks also provide an appropriate level to determine whether a facility's storm water pollution prevention measures are successfully implemented. The benchmark concentrations are not effluent limitations and should not be interpreted or adopted as such. These values are merely levels which EPA has used to determine if a storm water discharge from any given facility merits further monitoring to insure that the facility has been successful in implementing a SWPPP. As such these levels represent a target concentration for a facility to achieve through implementation of pollution prevention measures at the facility. Table 3 lists the parameter benchmark values and the sources used for the benchmarks. Additional explanation information concerning the derivation of the benchmarks can be found in the fact sheet for the 1995 MSGP (60 FR 50825).

Table 3.—Parameter Benchmark Values

Parameter name

Benchmark level

Source

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5)

30 mg/L

Chemical Oxygen Demand

120 mg/L

Total Suspended Solids

100 mg/L

Oil and Grease

15 mg/L

Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen

0.68 mg/L

Total Phosphorus

2.0 mg/L

6.0-9.0 s.u.

Acrylonitrile (c)

7.55 mg/L

Aluminum, Total (pH 6.5-9)

0.75 mg/L

Ammonia

19 mg/L

Antimony, Total

0.636 mg/L

Arsenic, Total (c)

0.16854 mg/L

Benzene

0.01 mg/L

Beryllium, Total (c)

0.13 mg/L

Butylbenzyl Phthalate

3 mg/L

Cadmium, Total (H)

0.0159 mg/L

Chloride

860 mg/L

Copper, Total (H)

0.0636 mg/L

Dimethyl Phthalate

1.0 mg/L

Ethylbenzene

3.1 mg/L

Fluoranthene

0.042 mg/L

Fluoride

1.8 mg/L

Iron, Total

1.0 mg/L

Lead, Total (H)

0.0816 mg/L

Manganese

1.0 mg/L

Mercury, Total

0.0024 mg/L

Nickel, Total (H)

1.417 mg/L

PCB-1016 (c)

0.000127 mg/L

PCB-1221 (c)

0.10 mg/L

PCB-1232 (c)

0.000318 mg/L

PCB-1242 (c)

0.00020 mg/L

PCB-1248 (c)

0.002544 mg/L

PCB-1254 (c)

0.10 mg/L

PCB-1260 (c)

0.000477 mg/L

Phenols, Total

1.0 mg/L

Pyrene (PAH,c)

0.01 mg/L

Selenium, Total (*)

0.2385 mg/L

Silver, Total (H)

0.0318 mg/L

Toluene

10.0 mg/L

Trichloroethylene (c)

0.0027 mg/L

Zinc, Total (H)

0.117 mg/L

Sources:

1. “EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria.” Acute Aquatic Life Freshwater

2. “EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria.” LOEL Acute Freshwater

3. “EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria.” Human Health Criteria for Consumption of Water and Organisms

4. Secondary Treatment Regulations (40 CFR 133)

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

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

7. National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) median concentration

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

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

10. Laboratory derived Minimum Level (ML)

11. Discharge limitations and compliance data

12. “EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria.” Chronic Aquatic Life Freshwater

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

Notes:

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

(H) hardness dependent

(PAH) Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon

Assumptions:

Receiving water temperature—20 C

Receiving water pH—7.8

Receiving water hardness CaCO3 100 mg/L

Receiving water salinity 20 g/kg

Acute to Chronic Ratio (ACR)—10

EPA prepared a statistical analysis of the sampling data for each pollutant parameter reported within each sector or subsector. (Only where EPA did not subdivide an industry sector into subsectors was an analysis of the entire sector's data performed.) The statistical analysis was performed assuming a delta log normal distribution of the sampling data within each sector/subsector. The analyses calculated median, mean, maximum, minimum, 95th, and 99th percentile concentrations for each parameter. The results of the analyses can be found in the appropriate section of Section VIII of the fact sheet accompanying the 1995 MSGP. From this analysis, EPA was able to identify

pollutants for further evaluation within each sector or subsector.

EPA next compared the median concentration of each pollutant for each sector or subsector to the benchmark concentrations listed in Table 3. EPA also compared the other statistical results to the benchmarks to better ascertain the magnitude and range of the discharge concentrations to help identify the pollutants of concern. EPA did not conduct this analysis if a sector had data for a pollutant from less than three individual facilities. Under these circumstances, the sector or subsector would not have this pollutant identified as a pollutant of concern. This was done to ensure that a reasonable number of facilities represented the industry sector or subsector as a whole and that the analysis did not rely on data from only one facility.

For each industry sector or subsector, parameters with a median concentration higher than the benchmark level were considered pollutants of concern for the industry and identified as potential pollutants for analytical monitoring under today's permit. EPA then analyzed the list of potential pollutants to be monitored against the lists of significant materials exposed and industrial activities which occur within each industry sector or subsector as described in the Part I application information. Where EPA could identify a source of a potential pollutant which is directly related to industrial activities of the industry sector or subsector, the permit identifies that parameter for analytical monitoring. If EPA could not identify a source of a potential pollutant which was associated with the sector/subsector's industrial activity, the permit does not require monitoring for the pollutant in that sector/subsector. Industries with no pollutants for which the median concentrations are higher than the benchmark levels are not required to perform analytical monitoring under this permit, with the exceptions explained below.

In addition to the sectors and subsectors identified for analytical monitoring using the methods described above, EPA determined, based upon a review of the degree of exposure, types of materials exposed, special studies and in some cases inadequate sampling data in the group applications, that the following industries also warrant analytical monitoring not withstanding the absence of data on the presence or absence of certain pollutants in the group applications: Sector K (hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities), and Sector S (airports which use more than 100,000 gallons per year of glycol-based fluids or 100 tons of urea for deicing). The proposed MSGP-2000 would retain the monitoring requirements of the existing MSGP due to the high potential for contamination of storm water discharge, which EPA believes was not adequately characterized by group applicants in the information they provided in the group application process. It should also be noted that like the existing MSGP, exemptions for the proposed MSGP-2000 would be on a pollutant-by-pollutant and outfall-by-outfall basis.

EPA analyzed the monitoring data which have been submitted under the MSGP for year 2 (year 4 data are due in March, 2000) both on a sector-and pollutant-basis. For the pollutant-basis, the need for year 4 monitoring (determined by whether the monitoring benchmarks—see Section Table 4 below—were exceeded) was performed on both a facility-wide and outfall-specific basis (

i.e.,

many facilities submitted DMR data for more than one outfall). The facility-wide basis determined whether any of the year 2 average discharge concentrations for any of the outfalls at the given facility exceeded the benchmark value. The outfall-specific basis evaluated each outfall independently. The results of these two analyses are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.—1995 MGSP DMR Data Above Benchmark Values (Pollutant-Basis)

Pollutant

Benchmark value

Facility-wide basis

Total number of facilities

Above benchmark

Outfall-specific basis

Total number of outfalls

Above benchmark

TSS

100 mg/L

111

59 (53.2%)

185

86 (46.5%)

COD

120 mg/L

15 (50.0%)

25 (48.1%)

Nitrate+Nitrite Nitrogen

0.68 mg/L

14 (46.7%)

31 (59.6%)

Aluminum

0.75 mg/L

38 (74.5%)

57 (66.3%)

Arsenic

0.16854 mg/L

0 (0%)

Copper

0.0636 mg/L

1 (12.5%)

1 (4.3%)

Iron

1.0 mg/L

58 (69.0%)

148

95 (64.2%)

Lead

0.0816 mg/L

6 (27.3%)

6 (18.2%)

Zinc

0.117 mg/L

43 (74.1%)

127

94 (74.0%)

As seen in Table 4, approximately 50 percent of the facilities and outfalls exceeded benchmark values for non-metallic pollutants (

i.e.,

TSS, COD, and Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen) while exceedances of the benchmark values for the metals were, for the most part, slightly higher. EPA intends to evaluate year 4 data for facilities that were required to monitor both years to identify possible trends in pollutant concentrations.

For Table 5, EPA evaluated by sector the number of facilities that monitored during year 2 that would also be required to monitor in year 4. The initial analysis focused on the facility as a whole. Specifically, Table 5 identifies the number of facilities submitting DMRs during year 2 in the 13 sectors that had DMR data for any pollutants required to be analyzed for which benchmark values exist. The omission of sectors from this list may be for one or more reasons. For example, no Sector G facilities (Metal Mining) are included in the analysis since all the facilities reviewed by EPA were “no discharge” facilities and thus did not submit monitoring data. Another reason, such as for Sector B (Paper and Allied Products), is that EPA did not evaluate any DMRs from facilities within the sector that monitored for any pollutants with benchmark values.

Table 5.—1995 MGSP DMR Data Above Benchmark Values

[Sector-Basis]

Sector

Total number of facilities

At least one average above benchmark

Above benchmark (in percent)

52.8

62.5

71.4

100

81.8

16.7

100

Total

161

124

77.0

As seen from this analysis, 77 percent of the facilities surveyed would be required to monitor during year 4 for at least one pollutant at a minimum of one outfall. While EPA considers this to be a somewhat limited data set, the Agency does believe that the numbers indicate that a small percentage of facilities are being excluded from year 4 monitoring based on year 2 data.

EPA believes that the year 2 data, in combination with year 4 data, should provide a better understanding of the synergy between analytical monitoring and SWPPP effectiveness, although, more information regarding steps that facilities took in response to year 2 data above benchmark values will be needed to fully understand this relationship. As such, EPA is soliciting information on the activities undertaken by permittees in response to elevated levels of pollutants above benchmark values to compare with the year 2 and year 4 data to fully evaluate the effectiveness of analytical monitoring requirements in the MSGP. This type of information would also be useful in evaluating suggestions from the public in response to EPA's specific request for comments on possible alternatives or modifications to analytical monitoring (discussed earlier in Part VI.E).

The current MSGP requires that all facilities, save for Sector G, within an industry sector or subsector identified for analytical monitoring must, at a minimum, monitor their storm water discharges quarterly during the second year of permit coverage, unless the facility exercises the Alternative Certification described in Section VI.E.3 of this fact sheet. At the end of the second year of coverage under the current permit, a facility was required to calculate the average concentration for each parameter for which the facility is required to monitor. If the average concentration for a pollutant parameter was less than or equal to the benchmark value, then the permittee was not required to conduct analytical monitoring for that pollutant during the fourth year of the permit. If, however, the average concentration for a pollutant is greater than the benchmark value, then the permittee was required to conduct quarterly monitoring for that pollutant during the fourth year of permit coverage. Analytical monitoring was not required during the first, third, and fifth year of the permit. The exclusion from analytical monitoring in the fourth year of the permit was conditional on the facility maintaining industrial operations and BMPs that will ensure a quality of storm water discharges consistent with the average concentrations recorded during the second year of the permit.

For today's proposed MSGP, EPA is also proposing to require analytical monitoring in the second and fourth year of the permit. For purposes of this monitoring, year 2 runs from October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002; year 4 runs from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004.

2. Compliance Monitoring

Today's proposal retains the same compliance monitoring requirements of the existing MSGP, and also includes compliance monitoring requirements for certain storm water discharges from new and existing hazardous and non-hazardous landfills. As noted earlier, EPA has recently finalized effluent limitations guidelines for these landfills (65 FR 3007, January 19, 2000) and the compliance monitoring would be required to ensure compliance with

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

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.