NCWQA Comments on NCG11

Qto\ecting Wat&rQ
4
0
0
Q
NORTH CAROLINA WATER
QUALITY ASSOCIATION
May 17, 2023
Submitted via Email (Brittany.cook(&ncdenr.gov; Isaiah.reed(&ncdenr.gov)
Ms. Brittany Cook
Mr. Isaiah Reed
Stormwater Program
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Re: General Permit NCGii0000 NPDES Permit to Discharge Stormwater
Dear Ms. Cook and Mr. Reed:
The North Carolina Water Quality Association (NCWQA) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of
Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources' (DEMLR's) proposed reissuance of the General
Permit to Discharge Stormwater from Treatment Works under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System for Treatment Works, Permit NCGll0000 (Draft GP).The
NCWQA is a statewide association of public water/sewer/stormwater utilities
representing a significant majority of the State's population receiving public water and
sewer services. NCWQA strives to achieve environmentally responsible solutions to water
quality issues in an affordable and cost-effective manner.
I would be remiss if I did not note our disappointment in the lack of outreach to local
government permittees in the development of this significantly revised draft permit. We
also were disappointed that the Department compounded the lack of outreach by
declining any extension of the 3o-day comment period that came out of the blue.
Nevertheless, we appreciate the Department's consideration of our attached comments.
We also request that you carefully consider any individual comments filed by NCWQA
members before moving forward with the final permit reissuance.
Sincerely,
/F. Paul Calamita
F. Paul Calamita
General Counsel
C: NCWQA Members
Deputy Secretary Sushma Masemore

COMMENTS ON NORTH CAROLINA DEQ'S PROPOSED REISSUANCE OF A
GENERAL PERMIT TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER FOR SECTOR T
TREATMENT WORKS
The North Carolina Water Quality Association (NCWQA) has concerns regarding several
of the changes in the proposed GP. All of NCWQA's Members own and/or operate
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs)that must either seek coverage for stormwater
discharges from their facilities or submit a no exposure exclusion to the State to verify
that coverage is not needed. Our concerns are explained in detail below.
I. Significant Comments
A. Phasing of New Requirements.
The new general permit imposes a number of new and more stringent requirements. To
the extent those requirements remain in the final permit renewal, we urge the
Department to phase them in so that the permittees will have time to update their
programs, budgets, and staffing. Such compliance schedules/phase in approach is
particularly warranted given the lack of outreach with permittees ahead of the new
general permit. In particular, we think any analytical monitoring should have a six-
month compliance schedule.
B. Analytical Monitoring Should Not Be Included in the GP
The current Treatment Works General Permit limits analytical monitoring to facilities
with on-site vehicle maintenance activity that use more than a threshold amount of oil in
a year. 2o18 GP, Part II, Section B.
DEMLR proposes to significantly expand analytical monitoring requirements to include
not only baseline sampling for fecal coliform, pH, and total suspended solids (TSS)but to
require a comparison of results against benchmark values. Exceeding a benchmark value
would trigger a series of prescriptive, escalated corrective responses. Draft GP, Part E
(Analytical Monitoring of Stormwater Discharges), p. 13-14.
The NCWQA objects to the imposition of benchmarks for Treatment Works in this permit
renewal for the following reasons.
First, the proposal goes far beyond EPA's recently reissued 2021 Multi-Sector General
Permit (MSGP). EPA does not require that Sector T Treatment Works (POTWs) conduct
benchmark monitoring. 2021 MSGP, Part 8 (Sector-Specific Requirements (as
modified)), p. 186-188.1 To the contrary, Sector T permittees are required to conduct
indicator monitoring for chemical oxygen demand(COD),TSS, and pH and for polycyclic
'Available at:
chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/file
s/2o21-01/documents/2021_msgp_-_permit_part_8_-
sector_specific_requirements.pdf
1

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) if there are stormwater discharges from paved surfaces
sealed with coal-tar seal coat where industrial activities are located during permit
coverage. However, EPA has made this monitoring Report Only, with no thresholds,
benchmark, or baseline values. EPA does not require indicator monitoring for fecal
coliforms. Moreover, EPA does not impose any escalating response requirements as a
result of permittee indicator monitoring.
The State has provided no basis for imposing these more stringent requirements than
EPA imposes in this MSGP renewal. Further, any imposition of benchmark requirements
as well as response requirements would contravene state law, which prohibits DEQ from
adopting a more restrictive standard, limitation, or requirement "than those imposed by
federal law or rule"that pertains to the same subject matter absent a compelling reason.
EPA does not require benchmark monitoring for certain sectors precisely because the
facilities are unlikely to be significant dischargers of pollutants. For example, as noted
above, under the 2021 MSGP, Sector T has a very limited set of additional SWPPP
(stormwater pollution prevention plan) and inspection requirements but has no
benchmark monitoring requirements at all. In contrast, Sector G Metal Mining is subject
to extensive sector specific requirements, including benchmark testing for numerous
parameters. EPA knew how to impose benchmark-based monitoring and response
requirements but expressly elected not to do so in their Sector T permit update in 2021.
DEMLR is prohibited from going beyond these express EPA requirements.
While there may be some detectable bacteria levels in outfalls authorized under the
general permit, our experience is that these levels are substantially if not completely
attributable to non-anthropogenic sources. DEMLR's Fact Sheet simply notes that
bacteria hits have occurred at "industrial, commercial, or municipal" plants — leaving it
uncertain as to whether there have been any levels of concern from any POTW's
stormwater discharges statewide. Further, DEMLR provides no basis at all for pH and
TSS monitoring. There is little we can do about pH levels — which we do not believe are
a water quality issue associated with wet weather discharges regulated under the general
permit.
We are also concerned that DEMLR has provided no basis for establishing the proposed
benchmark values.We are also concerned that the bacterial benchmark is not targeted to
anthropogenic sources only.
Again, we urge DEMLR to stick to the qualitative monitoring being implemented under
the existing GP. At most, DEMLR could transition to EPA's indicator monitoring rather
than the more expansive (and unnecessary) benchmark approach proposed in the draft
GP. DEMLR should delete all of the analytical monitoring text in the Draft GP, including
benchmarks and corrective action requirements. This includes the text on pages 9
(references to benchmarks in draw downs), 13-14 (analytical monitoring), 15-18 (Tier
One, Two, and Three responses), 19 (reports required if more frequent monitoring has
occurred), and 27 (Action Plan submittal and approval).2
2 With regard to Tier Three Responses, NCWQA is concerned that permit compliance is
tied to DEMLR's approval of an Action Plan (Table 5) ("vii. Failure to obtain written plan
approval within 3 months of entering Tier Three status at the subject outfall constitutes a
violation of this permit."). This provision must be removed from the GP or modified to
2

C. If DEMLR Keeps More Limited Analytical Monitoring, Additional
Changes Are Needed
If DEMLR insists on Sector T analytical monitoring for pH and TSS, permittees should
only be required to conduct the monitoring for information purposes for a limited period.
NCWQA suggests annually for the first two years of the permit term. With the benefit of
that data, DEMLR will gain an understanding of whether there are significant issues
relating to Sector T. If there are, then we can identify an approach to addressing those
issues in the next permit renewal cycle.
DEMLR should also revise the requirement for a sample to be taken "within the first 30
minutes of discharge and continue until all outfalls that are discharging are sampled" to
read"to the extent practicable,within the first 30 minutes of discharge and continue until
all outfalls that are discharging are sampled." Part E-4(d), p. 14. Some larger NCWQA
members have numerous outfalls at multiple plants, many of which are situated on large
acreage. Sending staff to sample outfalls within 30 minutes of outfall activation will be
very challenging and likely impracticable in many circumstances. Such sampling will take
critical staff away from plant operations during times of high flow (due to rainfall), when
they are most needed at the plant. These requirements will further exacerbate our worker
shortages and could not come at a worse time. Smaller NCWQA members will be
challenged as well in that they will typically have limited staff available within the first 30
minutes of a storm to sample an outfall. NCWQA notes that while the sampling is limited
to a facility's "normal operating hours" many POTWs have 24/7 operations and, absent a
clarification that after-hours sampling is not required, may have to send staff out in the
evening and graveyard shifts. We object to such a requirement on staffing and safety
grounds. We will not send staff out along creek banks in the middle of the night during a
rain event unless it is safe to do so. On this same point, if POTWs are being asked to
sample after business hours, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get a sample to the
lab to comply with the fecal 8-hour hold time.
Additionally, given the much more extensive requirements as compared to the 2018 GP,
permittees will need additional time to develop a plan for how they will access outfalls
and perform the sampling, preservation, transfer, and lab analysis for these samples. If,
over our objection, these requirements remain in the general permit, we urge DEMLR to
allow representative sampling of certain outfalls to enable POTW staff to avoid outfalls
which present access, safety,or other obstacles to the sampling requirement. We disagree
that to be "representative" the discharges from such outfalls has to be "substantially
identical". Instead, the permit should allow permittees to sample from outfalls that are
representative in terms of pollutants discharged, of outfalls that are not proposed to be
sampled.
We also understand that NCWQA members will need a mechanism to exempt from
sampling outfalls that rarely discharge, multiple outfalls (in close proximity such that it
makes no sense to sample multiple outfalls in the area), etc. NCWQA asks that if DEMLR
moves forward with analytical monitoring for pH and TSS, it revise the Draft GP to
include a one-year delayed implementation period. We also request the opportunity to
require the submittal of an approvable plan. Otherwise, a delay by DEMLR in reviewing
an approvable plan would result in permit non-compliance.
3

meet with DEMLR before the proposed GP is finalized to discuss these staffing, safety,
and representative sampling (rather than all outfalls) issues. Such a phase-in approach
of these requirements is necessary for POTWs to address the staffing,planning,sampling,
chain-of-custody,laboratory analysis, reporting, and responsive requirements associated
with this sampling.
Lastly, the prohibition against taking samples that are closer than 3o days apart is
unnecessary. A better approach is for the permit to recommend that samples be taken 30
days apart but not require it. Staffing, analytical, and other factors may warrant multiple
sampling events within a 3o-day period and these samples are representative (unless the
Department has information which calls that representativeness into question — and the
permit does not provide any). Depending on how storms occur, a permittee may lose the
opportunity to sample during a monitoring period because 3o days have not elapsed since
the prior storm during which they were able to sample.NCWQA sees no logical reason for
this restriction and asks that this provision be deleted.
D. PFAS Monitoring Should Not Be Included in the GP
DEMLR is proposing in Part E-3, P. 14, to require permittees to "monitor for emerging
contaminants such as Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in
accordance with written notification."As with benchmarks,EPA's MSGP does not include
PFAS monitoring. Accordingly, this requirement violates N.C.G.S. §15oB-19.3•
We also object to PFAS monitoring because POTWs do not manufacture any PFAS
chemicals — we are innocent carriers of PFAS chemicals and such chemicals are not
expected to be in runoff from POTW facilities in amounts of interest (and certainly, not
concern). We note that PFAS sampling is expensive and there are currently no approved
wastewater/stormwater sampling methods.
We also object because the provision in question essentially forces the POTWs with
coverage under the General Permit to agree to PFAS monitoring now without knowing(1)
which PFAS must be monitored for, (2) using which methods, (3) at what frequency, etc.
Instead of this language, DEMLR could include a reopener provision in the General
Permit that would allow DEMLR to propose a PFAS sampling-related modification to the
permit.
Further, any PFAS levels in MS4 discharges from POTW sites are certain to be a small
fraction of the larger loadings in the nearby POTW effluent. It makes no sense to focus
on sampling intermittent (and de minimis) wet weather discharges in comparison to the
daily POTW effluent loadings. We also note that there are no applicable water quality
standards for PFAS so we see no purpose in requiring PFAS-related monitoring at this
time.
For these reasons, NCWQA requests that DEMLR delete PFAS monitoring requirements
from the Draft GP pending further discussions on this issue.
E. Solvent Management Plans Should Not Be Included in the GP
DEMLR has added a requirement in Part B-1o, P. 5 for a Solvent Management Plan to be
incorporated into the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
4

EPA's MSGP does not include solvent management planning. We are perplexed by why
DEMLR feels this is necessary for our sector;there is not a high or unusual level of solvent
used at POTWs. In addition, solvents are already a part of the definition of "significant
materials," making the special section unnecessary.
The language (in B-1o) also would require permittees to certify on the discharge
monitoring report (DMR) that there has not been a "leak, spill, or dumping of
concentrated solvents into the stormwater or onto areas which are exposed to rainfall or
stormwater runoff' since the last DMR was filed and that the permittee is in compliance
with its solvent management plan. We object to these requirements, which are not
included in federal law. There are spill reporting requirements in both State and federal
law and this provision is legally incorrect because it exceeds such spill reporting
requirements. Moreover,there is no requirement in state or federal law requiring an MS4
permittee to certify that no solvent spills have occurred during any time period. This
requirement is impermissibly made up out of whole cloth and must be deleted.
NCWQA requests that DEMLR delete the entire Solvent Management Plan section from
the final GP renewal.
F. Draw Down Requirements Should Not Be Included in the GP
DEMLR has added a requirement in Part C-5, P. 9-10 mandating that any draw down of
treatment facilities can only be done if: (i) benchmarks and/or limits are met; (ii)
analytical sampling data shows the discharge will not exceed benchmarks; and (iii) the
draw down is "for essential maintenance to ensure efficient operation."
This is a new requirement, and, again, appears to be unprecedented in an industrial
stormwater permit. EPA's MSGP does not include these (or any) draw down restrictions.
NCWQA is concerned that DEMLR is overreaching here and inserting itself into BMP
maintenance decisions (assuming "treatment facilities" are BMPs, see discussion below).
More importantly, EPA and the State both have expectations that there will be regular
maintenance on permittee-owned BMPs. Limiting a permittee's ability to maintain its
BMPs puts the permittee between a rock and a hard place—either maintain as needed and
risk allegations of permit non-compliance for a draw down that does not meet the criteria
above or have EPA or the State question why maintenance has not occurred. Limiting
draw downs for maintenance purposes to only those that are "essential" is the polar
opposite of typical preventive maintenance expectations for stormwater BMPs.
Further, these draw down-related restrictions impermissibly interfere with permittee's
operation of their stormwater systems and could have significant adverse implications for
facility operation, flooding, and reliability.
NCWQA requests that DEMLR delete the entire Draw Down section of the Draft GP.
G. Bypass and Upset Should Not Be Included in the GP
Parts C-6, C-7, and C-8,p. io-ii of the Draft GP discuss bypasses of stormwater treatment
facilities, upsets, and required bypass and upset notices. Neither bypass nor upsets are
5

mentioned in EPA's MSGP. We do not believe that the bypass prohibition applies to a
stormwater best management practice (which by definition will have a level of
service/performance, which may vary due to a wide range of factors — including draw
down policies).
NCWQA questions why these requirements make sense in a stormwater permit. We are
unaware of how a bypass of a BMP would even occur (i.e., how or why a permittee would
actively choose to route storm water flows around a BMP). In a similar vein, unlike the
Treatment Works itself,where there can be an upset in the process that results in potential
non-compliance with an end-of-pipe effluent limit, BMPs are not actively operated by
plant personnel (they work, instead, by passive infiltration, etc.) and there are not
established numeric criteria for treatment.
We ask that Parts C-6, C-7, and C-8, related reporting requirements at Part G, Table 7
(Other Occurrences that Shall Be Reported), and definitions in Part J (Definitions) be
deleted.
H. The Permit Should Not Impose a General Water Quality Standards
Requirement.
Page 2 of the General Permit specifies that"The discharges allowed by this General Permit
shall not cause or contribute to violations of Water Quality Standards. Discharges allowed
by this permit must meet applicable wetlands standards...."
This general water quality standards-compliance language is inappropriate because it
deprives POTW permittees of fair notice and due process (opportunity to comment,
appeal, and request a compliance schedule) of the allowable levels of a pollutant which
can be discharged.
This language must be removed from the permit or at a minimum, qualified with "To the
extent required by applicable law, the discharges allowed by this General Permit shall not
cause or contribute to violations of Water Quality Standards."
II. Other Comments
A. Vehicle Maintenance Activities Are Not Regulated Unless They Are Part
of Industrial Activities
The Draft GP states that the Site Map must include"Industrial Activities areas (including,
but not limited to: sludge storage areas, vehicle maintenance activities, storage of
materials, disposal areas, process areas, loading and unloading areas, and haul roads)."
Part B-3(d), P. 3. The 2o18 GP does not include "vehicle maintenance activities."
EPA's federal stormwater regulations define "Storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity" as activities "directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw
materials storage areas at an industrial plant." 40 C.F.R. §122.26(b)(14). This includes
sites "used for the storage and maintenance of material handling equipment"but it does
not include vehicle maintenance activities.
6

If vehicle maintenance is occurring at a POTW, perhaps because it is sharing space with
public works or other municipal departments, it stands to reason this is not a part of the
"industrial activity" that is occurring at the plant. Vehicle maintenance is not related to
manufacturing, process, or raw materials storage. It is more akin to the areas that are
excluded from federal regulation, including office buildings and parking lots "as long as
the drainage from the excluded areas is not mixed with"stormwater from industrial areas.
For these reasons,NCWQA asks that DEMLR revise the Draft GP to remove references to
vehicle maintenance activities throughout the draft.3
B. Evaluation of Stormwater Outfalls Language Should Be Revised
The Draft GP directs permittees to annually evaluate "all stormwater outfalls for the
presence of non-stormwater discharges," "identify the source," and then "evaluate the
environmental significance of the non-stormwater discharges and include a summary
written record and certification statement." Part B-5, P. 4. There are three problems with
this text.
First, the requirement must clarify that only outfalls owned/operated by the POTW must
be evaluated. In the alternative, DEMLR could consider EPA's 2021 MSGP Section
6.2.3.4 which requires inspections of "discharge points" as a part of an Unauthorized
Non-Stormwater Discharges Evaluation. Discharge points are defined in Appendix A as
"the location where collected and concentrated stormwater flows are discharged from the
facility..."4
Second, it is possible a permittee may not be able to identify the source of a non-
stormwater discharge. A permittee should only be required to "identify the source" to the
extent practicable to do so.
Third, NCWQA questions how a permittee will "evaluate the environmental significance"
of a non-stormwater discharge. This is vague and provides no guidance to permittees
regarding the State's expectations. This is particularly concerning given the certification
requirement imposed with this non-stormwater discharge reporting. We ask that
DEMLR strike this requirement, which exceeds federal requirements and, therefore,
contravenes N.C.G.S. §15oB-19.3•
C. The State Should Clarify Terminology
NCWQA notes that multiple terms are used for what may or may not be the same thing
throughout the Draft GP. This is confusing and should be clarified. These are the type of
issues that advance stakeholder engagement will resolve before getting to the draft permit
stage.
3 Other references include Part B-6(c), P. 4, Part B-11, p. 6, and references in Part E
regarding analytical monitoring.
4 Likewise, visual inspections in Part D-1, p. 12 should be limited to outfalls owned or
operated by the permittee and within the regulated footprint for the POTW. For
reference, EPA's MSGP at Section 3.1.2 states that a permittee must inspect discharge
points in areas of the facility covered by the permit. See also Part E-5, P. 15 (Locations for
Collecting Samples).
7

For example, at Part B-7,P.4,the section header is"Facility Inspections" ("Facility"is not
defined in the Draft GP) but the text references BMPs. Also, although BMPs are defined
in Part J (Definitions) to include structural and non-structural BMPs, Part B-7 seems to
be talking about structural BMPs only.
Another example is at Part C-1, p. 9, which states that the permittee shall "[p]roperly
operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control and related
appurtenances which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit."As noted above, facility is not defined in Part J and neither
is systems of treatment and control and related appurtenances. However, Stormwater
Control Measures (SCM),which is used often in the Draft GP, is defined. DEMLR should
clarify whether Part C-1 refers to SCM or if there is something else intended.
See also Part C-5, Draw Down of Treatment Facilities for Essential Maintenance,p. 9.The
section header references "Treatment Facilities" and the text references "stormwater
treatment facilities"—neither of which are defined in the Draft GP.
Lastly, there are multiple references to "equipment" in the Draft GP, but equipment is
undefined. Presumably,this only includes equipment used as a part of industrial activities
at the POTW and not all equipment used in treatment.
D. SCM Clean Out - SCM Should Not Be Included in the GP
The Draft GP includes a new requirement to clean out SCM when sediment exceeds 50%
of the design sediment volume or when "visible sedimentation is leaving the property."
Part C-2, p. 9.
NCWQA believes this requirement will be very difficult to implement given the specific
standard. Permittees should, of course, be regularly cleaning sediment from SCMs, as
appropriate (some SCMs are not designed to be cleaned out,like rain gardens). However,
the specification of a precise 50 percent sediment level threshold creates inappropriate
liability for permittees that is not imposed under federal or State law. Part C-1 already
requires operation and maintenance of facilities installed to achieve compliance with the
GP.
We also believe the definition of"visible sedimentation"is far too broad.
NCWQA requests that DEMLR delete Part C-2 in its entirety.
E. Residuals Management Should Not Be Included in the GP
The Draft GP includes a new requirement to manage residuals "in accordance with
applicable standards and in a manner such as to prevent any pollutants from such
materials from entering waters of the state or navigable waters of the United States." Part
C-3, P. 9•
This requirement is not necessary. All POTWs in the State are required to manage their
residuals consistent with their individual NPDES permits and in accordance with the law.
In addition, including it in the Draft GP unfairly subjects these permittees to potential
8

double jeopardy from enforcement under two permits, instead of one, for the same
requirement.
NCWQA requests that DEMLR delete Part C-3 in its entirety.
F. The Corrective Actions Requirement Should Be Revised
The Draft GP mandates that a permittee take corrective action if"a facility fails to perform
satisfactorily or a facility creates nuisance conditions." Part C-4, P. 9•
First, as noted above, "facility" is undefined. We assume this is not the plant itself, but
rather an SCM. Regardless,it is not necessary to include this language because the general
requirement in Part C-4 to take needed corrective actions covers SCMs.
Second, NCWQA has not to its knowledge ever seen an industrial stormwater permit that
prohibits "nuisance conditions." One issue is that whatever those conditions are is
undefined. EPA's MSGP does not include a similar prohibition. DEMLR's intent in
including this terminology is unclear and, regardless of why it is included, it is entirely
too vague to remain as it is currently written. It also violates N.C.G.S. §15oB-19.3 because
it exceeds federal requirements.
Accordingly, NCWQA requests that DEMLR revise Part C-4 to only require that the
permittee take corrective action if self-inspections identify a need for corrective actions.
The rest of Part C-4 should be deleted.
In addition, corrective actions should not include "the construction of additional or
replacement treatment or disposal facilities" (again, undefined). NCWQA agrees that
SCMs may need corrective action based on inspections but a carte blanche requirement
to build additional SCMs is premature and too broad - especially absent a showing that
existing SCMs will not adequately serve to reduce pollutants. Corrective actions should
occur as soon as practicable, considering weather, site conditions, and other
implementation factors (for example, cost).
NCWQA suggests the following edits:
"Corrective actions shall include, but net b linifted te. maintenance, modifications, or
additions to existing control measures,
. If the permittee
determines that the above measures are inadequate to appropriately address pollutants
from stormwater discharges, the permittee shall consider the construction of additional
BMPs at the site. Corrective actions shall be completed as soon as pestle practicable
considering adverse weather} and site conditions, and other implementation issues that
may impact the feasibility and timing of corrective actions (e.g_, cost, procurement
requirements, availability of supplies)."
G. "Deposition at or Immediately Below the Outfall" Should Be Clarified
The Draft GP states that a permittee must include observations of "[d]eposition at or
immediately below the outfall" in the Qualitative Monitoring Report. Part D-1(d), p. 12.
NCWQA assumes this is deposition of sediment, but this is not stated in the permit
9

language. In addition, there could be many reasons why sediment has built up at or
immediately below the outfall. The requirement should be limited to sediment build up
that is the direct result of permittee's discharges.
NCWQA suggests the following edits:
"Deposition of unusually high levels of sediment at or immediately below the outfall if the
sediment deposition is the direct result of discharges from the permittee's regulated
outfalls"
On a related note, at Part G,Table 7,P. 21 DEMLR has added a reporting requirement for
"[v]isible sediment deposition in a stream or wetland"without making any connection to
the industrial permittee at all. This should either be deleted or edited similar to the
language above. Moreover, we object to the 24-hour call and 7-day letter requirement in
response to "visible sediment deposition in a stream or wetland." This simply does not
warrant a 24-hour call. At what level does ongoing deposition trigger the call
requirement? After a major storm event, does DEMLR really want 24-hour calls. What
is DEMLR's authority to impose the 24-hour call and 7-day letter requirement?
H. Permittees Should Be Given Additional Flexibility for Qualitative
Monitoring Response Actions
The Draft GP directs permittees to investigate potential causes if qualitative monitoring
indicates a problem with BMPs or that"significant stormwater contamination is present"
and to implement "those feasible corrective actions within sixty (6o) days." Part D-2(a),
P. 12.
This language does not address what a permittee should do it if is not the cause of the
"significant stormwater contamination." In addition, although 6o days is in the current
GP, there should be additional flexibility here to allow for more time if needed.
NCWQA suggests the following edits:
"(a) If the permittee's qualitative monitoring indicates that the SWPPP and/or existing
stormwater BMPs are ineffective, or that significant stormwater contamination is present
that is the result of discharges from the permittee's regulated outfalls,the permittee shall
investigate potential causes, evaluate the feasibility of corrective actions, and implement
those feasible corrective actions within sixty(6o) days, unless a later date is agreed to by
the permittee and DEMLR."
I. Employee Training Requirements Are Overly Proscriptive
The Draft GP mandates annual employee training that includes specific topics. Part B-12,
p. 6-7. NCWQA questions whether certain topics are even applicable to stormwater at a
POTW (specifically, used battery management, spent solvent management, sanding,
painting, and blasting procedures). This is not only overly proscriptive but requiring
POTWs to cover certain irrelevant topics cuts into the time available to discuss topics that
are pertinent to operations, like spill response.
NCWQA requests that DEMLR delete the specific topics provided in (a) through (1).
10

J. B-9(c) Spill Prevention and Response
We do not see where DEMLR has the authority to require that POTWs keep a"signed and
dated acknowledgement in which staff members accept responsibilities (SIC) for the
SPRP". This should be deleted from the permit.
K. The Definition of MS4 Should Be Revised
The Draft GP defines MS4 as"A stormwater collection system within an incorporated area
of local self-government such as a city or town." Part J, P. 34•
This is incorrect. There are MS4s that are not owned or operated by local self-
government. The term "municipal" is used much more broadly in EPA's federal
stormwater regulations to include state and federal facilities that own regulated drainage
systems. NCWQA suggests using the federal definition for purposes of the GP.
L. Administrative Requirements. The General Permit should address the
administrative challenge of setting up hundreds of POTW MS4 outfalls in the eDMR
system, and the heavy administrative load that this will add to POTW staff.
M. Delete On-Line SWPPP Certification. Part B-16 requires an"Annual On-Line
SWPPP Certification". We don't see the need for this and, instead, ask that we retain the
existing requirement to maintain these certifications onsite.
N. Revise Section F-6 (Additional Monitoring by Permittee).
Section F-6 states that for the purpose of benchmark monitoring,the first analytical result
for each parameter should be used rather than an average of data over the monitoring
period. While we maintain our objection to benchmark monitoring, we question why
DEMLR would not allow the use of an average value (which provides better information)
rather than whatever the first result was.
O. Document Retention Period Should be Three Rather Than Five Years.
Federal law requires that NPDES-related documents be retained for three years and not
five years. This needs to be corrected in the regulation.
P. H-13 Test Procedures. We object to the requirement that permittees must
report down to the method detection level. Reporting requires a certification that the data
are "true, accurate, and complete." We can't make that certification for qualified lab data
(above detection but below the lab's quantitation level). We should simply have to report
using a sufficiently sensitive method at or below the compliance level or using the
commercially available method with the lowest detection/quantitation level.
Q. Delete Unused Definitions. The following definitions should be deleted as
they are not otherwise used in the permit:
• io-year storm event
• 25-year storm event
• Trout Waters
11