NCG010000_Summit Comments_20240325

Clark, Paul
From: Patrick Sullivan, CPESC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 4:33 PM
To: Clark, Paul
Cc: Kristi Anspach, CPESC
Subject: [External] NCGO10000 Renewal Comments
Attachments: Summit NCG01 Comments.pdf
You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good afternoon,
Please find attached comments for the draft NCG010000 renewal for April 2024. Please let me know of
any questions or concerns.
Patrick Sullivan, CPESC
Operations Coordinator
Tel: [phone]
Cell:919-270-8066
5A�m E ML A IL 'IT
E 0 MAL AM
E a
1111111111111111' m
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
IM
i

USUMMIT
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
March 25, 2024
Paul Clark
Water Supply Watershed Protection Coordinator
NCDEMLR-Stormwater Program
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Dear Mr. Clark,
Please see below comments and requests for clarifications regarding the draft NCG01 permit released in
February. These comments have been compiled based on the actual application of NCG01 processes during the
prior renewal period (2019-2024) and ongoing client and permittee concerns with permit language,
interpretations, and parameters.
Feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have and thank you for the opportunity to provide
comments on this draft.
Sincerely,
Patrick Sullivan, CPESC, CESSWI
Operations Coordinator
Stormwater Planning and Compliance
Summit Design and Engineering Services
Headquarters Office
320 Executive Court, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919.732.3883 // www.summitde.com

NCG01,Part V Definitions
1. Stormwater Discharge Outfall (SDO)
The point of departure of Stormwater from a discernible, confined, or discrete conveyance, including but not limited to,
storm sewer pipes, drainage ditches, channels, spillways, or channelized collection areas,from which stormwater flows
directly or indirectly into waters.
Scope
In a request for clarification in 2021 (email subject line'silt fence outlet question, NCG01', email chain available
upon request),information was provided by the Stormwater Program Supervisor and State Sediment Program
Engineer that silt fence outlets were not considered stormwater discharge outfalls.
During the December 2023 public comment period for the current NCG01 renewal, a request was made that
the definition of outlet be added to the permit, as well as a clarification of the Stormwater Discharge Outfall
(SDO) definition in relation to silt fence outlets (SFOs). A follow up response indicated that current NCDEMLR
staff consider the terms outfall and outlet to be the same device, so no separate definition for outlet is required.
Comment
Due to the ongoing nature of this conversation,varying interpretations by delegated authorities, regulatory
inspectors and NCDEMLR staff, and ongoing permittee and end-user concerns, it is requested that additional
consideration be given to this clarification.
• The conflict between the prior provided (February 2021) review and information from NCDEMLR on
the topic of silt fence outlets as SDOs and the current response (January 2024) creates a compliance
issue for permittees.
o Permittees that are preparing or approving designee-issued NPDES reports need direct
guidance from NCDEMLR in order to monitor all required SDOs and remain compliant with
the permit. This guidance must align between the Erosion and Sediment Program staff
(enforcement of most components of NCG01) and the Stormwater Program staff(permit and
Certificate of Coverage administration and issuance).
o Current design standards for silt fence outlets do not require identification on erosion and
sediment control plan sets of the silt fence outlets in the same manner that all other types of
SDOs are identified.
o Potential silt fence outlet locations are noted on the plans,but the devices are typically intended
to be field located in low points in the silt fence, and may be relocated, extended, or removed as
grading progresses. Additional SFOs may also be installed between existing SFOs as repairs are
needed for silt fence that is overwhelmed or undermined (indicators of concentrated flow). On
larger sites and linear projects there may be several hundred SFOs installed throughout the life
of the project.
® 2

o With no numbering or labeling specifics provided within the approved plans, identifying each
individual SFO with a random, field generated and often revised label or number within the
SDO monitoring table creates a confusing and largely unusable amount of data with no direct
environmental compliance gain as the SFOs overall are already reported on through the
maintenance portion of the issued NPDES report within the BMP monitoring section.
• Based on the information above,if NCDEQ does view SFOs as SDOs, additional clarification and
technical guidance will be needed for permittees to understand how to comply with this requirement
in a way that is auditable in a consistent manner.
o It is also requested that if NCDEQ does move in this direction, consideration be given to
updating the required plan components to include numbering or labeling of SFOs to provide
consistency between designers and the installers,inspectors,BMP maintenance crews, etc. (all
users of the plan). The NPDES inspector should not bear the responsibility of determining
numbering or labeling schemes for SFOs when this information is not provided within the
approved plan set and thus would not be shared amongst all users of the plan.
o Additionally, limiting those SFOs that are considered SDOs (if this determination is made) to
those with a specific level of environmental risk could resolve some of the issues created by this
determination. For example,if only SFOs that directly discharge runoff to a jurisdictional
wetland or stream were included within the defined parameters of an SDO,this would reduce
confusion and focus the SDO-table monitored SFOs to a usable amount, while all other SFOs
would continue to be inspected for maintenance needs in other portions of the report. This
process aligns with other existing delegated authority interpretations of this ongoing issue and
contributes to our request for clarification on this topic.
® 3

NCG01,Part II, Section A, Item 8, Documentation
Scope
Currently, the original wet-signed FRO is required by regional office plan reviewers to be submitted before the
review process can begin. This has resulted in delays in the review process after electronic submittal of all
required documents.
Comment
It is requested that the language in Part II. A. 8 be modified as noted below (in bold), to remain in conformance
with the requirements of NCGS 113A-57 and 15A NCAC 04b .0107:
• "A copy of the completed, signed, &notarized Financial Responsibility/Ownership Form."
NCG01,Part II, Operation and Maintenance and Part V,Definitions
Item 5 Secondary Containment
Definition'Bulk Storage of Liquid Materials'
Scope
The draft NCG01 includes a new Part II.G.5., which requires a secondary containment plan for bulk storage of
liquid materials. The definition for "Bulk Storage of Liquid Materials" in the draft NCG01 does not align with
the currently available federal SPCC requirements. Additionally, in 2002,the federal SPCC rule was revised to
remove the 660-gallon single container criteria,which was replaced by the 1,320-gallon cumulative capacity in
containers 55 gallons or larger criteria. The federal SPCC rule also applies specifically to the storage of"oil,"
and not all liquid materials.
By expanding the requirement to include the storage capacity of all liquid materials,not limited to "oil," the
conditions that warrant the need for a secondary containment plan are open to broad interpretation and create
an excessive burden on the permittee to interpret and comply with this broadened requirement. The draft
regulation gives way to potential scenarios where combined cumulative total capacity of paint cans, concrete
and paint washout areas, cleaning supplies, stored potable water, and portable toilets would need to be
calculated, tracked, and updated each day for permittees to maintain compliance. There is no information to
support these specific volume thresholds as the triggers for additional controls being needed for all of the
liquids potentially regulated by Part II.G.5.
Comment
It is requested that the following considerations are made:
• Definition of Storage with consideration of items such as small gas cans utilized by contractors that
arrive at the site daily and are taken away at the end of each working day.
4

o Is there a minimum capacity trigger for a volume of liquid that would count towards the overall
bulk storage total?
o In 2002 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) excluded containers under 55
gallons from the SPCC regulation. This exclusion provided relief to the industry by not requiring
the permittees to continuously track small, potentially transient, volumes of fuel additives,
lubricants, and equipment fluids each day as they are utilized at the facility.
• Definition of Liquid materials or the inclusion of material classifications:What specific types of
materials are to be considered as contributing to the bulk storage total? Is the reference to the prior 660-
gallon single container limit needed in consideration of federally updated requirements.
• Additionally, it is noted that the cited 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k) and 15A NCAC 02H .0143(a)(25) do not
specifically address secondary containment, bulk storage, or SPCC requirements. 15A NCAC 02H
.0143(a)(25) is an incorporation by reference of 40 C.F.R. § 122.44 (Establishing NPDES Permit
Conditions), which provides a general requirement to use BMPs when authorized under a NPDES
permit.
o The water priority chemicals list found in Appendix B of Section 313 of Title III of SARA is a
list of hundreds of chemical compounds with no indication of what materials found in the
construction industry may contain the chemical listed. To provide better clarity to permittees, we
request that NCDEQ incorporate a specific list of the types of materials or material
classifications into NCGO1 that are to be regulated under the new secondary containment plan
for bulk storage requirement.
• Secondary containment is already considered a BMP, and the discharge of hazardous materials is
prohibited. Permittees who have obtained coverage under the existing NCGO1, are inspecting and
maintaining all BMPs, are monitoring for the discharge of hazardous materials and who are operating in
compliance with federal SPCC regulations are already meeting the secondary containment requirements.
We request consideration of the deletion of this additional section within the draft NCGO 1 or the
limiting of this section to an inclusion by reference of existing SPCC requirements. This would also
rectify alignment issues with existing regulations and industry definitions and standards and the draft
NCGO 1 language.
� 5

NCG01,Part II,Section G,Item 3,Corrective Actions
Scope
This section of the draft NCG01 requires the completion of self-identified maintenance, revision or
addition to on-site BMPs'as soon as possible considering adverse weather and site conditions.' Due
to updates within the federal CGP and the inclusion of varying types of corrective actions (actions vs
routine maintenance) and their accompanying schedules, it has been interpreted that this statement
within NCG01 requires completion of all self-identified actions within 24 hours of reporting. The
cited NCGS and NCAC references accompanying this portion of NCG01 do not appear to include
any required timeframe for completion,except that which is identified within regulatory agency
reports.
Comment
It is requested that the NCG01 statement be revised as noted: 'these actions shall be scheduled for completion
as soon as possible considering adverse weather and site conditions.'
Additional language could be added to include a requirement to complete corrective actions within a set
timeframe, such as prior to the next routine inspection(aka within seven days), etc. to reduce interpretation
during regulatory reviews,inspections, and enforcement actions. The current language allows for an
interpretation of completion that is not realistic with construction processes.
NCG01,Part III, Self-Inspection,Recordkeeping and Reporting
Scope
The draft NCG01 includes a requirement to document the daily rainfall amounts. In lieu of an onsite rain
gauge, Part III.A, Table 4, row (1), third column has been updated as noted below:
"...The permittee may use another onsite rain-monitoring device approved by the Division."
Comment
It is requested that consideration be given to allowing weather station information to be utilized that is
representative of the permitted site,with clarification provided as to what NCDEMLR considers
'representative' (i.e. within a specific distance from the project). As weather-based technology increases and
improves, permittees being allowed to gather information from online sources provides a compliance benefit
as long as rain event inspections continue to be required under NCG01. This allowance assists compliance
efforts for smaller developers and builders, as well as those permittees with outlying or isolated projects.
Defining a set radius (distance from the site for the collection of precipitation data collection) limits overly
broad interpretations of this allowance while allowing for the advancement of technology during the permit
period.
■ 6

NCG01,Part III, Self-Inspection,Recordkeeping and Reporting, Section B,Recordkeeping
Scope
The draft NCG01 includes a requirement to keep the current approved erosion and sediment control plan on-
site.
Comment
It is requested that consideration be given to allowing for an electronic copy of the full SWPPP, including the
current erosion and sediment control plan, to meet this requirement,based on current technologies that allow
for digital plan mark ups, file sharing, and plan authority approvals that provide'equal access and utility.'
This allows for better alignment between all users of the plan, as the most current copy would be available
without the user being present on the site, and also reduces paper waste during the life of the project. In
reality, the typical users of the hardcopy plans are limited to the NPDES and regulatory inspectors, as digital
copies have become the industry norm for most third-party inspectors, contractors, developers and BMP
installer/maintainers.
NCG01,Part V,Definitions
Scope
The draft NCG01 allows for responsible corporate officers to delegate signing authority for certain,permit-
required documents by creating a delegation letter and submitting it to the director. The NCG01 protocol to
delegate a duly authorized representative is modeled after 40 C.F.R. § 122.22 and incorporates this provision
by reference. As an alternative to incorporating 40 C.F.R. § 122.22 into the CGP, including the requirement to
submit the delegation letter to the Director, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has
successfully implemented the following technique for delegating duly authorized representatives:
"The written authorization is included in the SWPPP. A copy shall be provided to the department and VSMP authority,
if requested."
Comment
It is requested that NCDEQ remove the incorporation of 40 C.F.R. § 122.22 and the requirement to submit the
delegation letter to the Director,by modifying Part IV.B.6(b) as follows:
"The written authorization is submitted t to nireet r r40 Grn 122.2211 is included in the SWPPP.A copy shall be
provided to the division and E&SC plan authority, if requested.'
m

NCG01,Part V,Definitions
Scope
North Carolina does not define "qualified personnel" in contrast to the EPA's CGP. The requirement for
inspectors to be "qualified personnel" exists in 40 C.F.R. §122.22, which was incorporated into the draft NCG01
by reference. The certification statement required by the draft NCG01 and by 40 C.F.R. §122.22 states as
follows:
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for
gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Comment
It is requested that NCDEQ include a definition of or"qualified person" in Part V of the draft NCG01
(Definitions), to align with the existing definition in the EPA's CGP,which states:
Qualified Person—a person knowledgeable in the principles and practice of erosion and sediment controls and
pollution prevention, who possesses the appropriate skills and training to assess conditions at the
construction site that could impact stormwater quality, and the appropriate skills and training to assess the
effectiveness of any stormwater controls selected and installed to meet the requirements of this permit.
The current stance by NCDEQ that'Self-inspections are not required to be done by a qualified person (as is the case for
the EPA construction stormwater permit)'devalues the importance of these inspections and creates no minimum
industry standard for understanding the components of an approved plan, environmental regulations,BMP
functions or maintenance requirements, and permit components and conditions. This definition does not
create any barriers to compliance for permittees, clarifies the intent of the signatory statement, and provides a
minimum standard to improve understanding of all affected parties during active coverage of any project
under NCG01.
Additional Comment
• It is requested that the Materials Handling and Required Timeframes for Temporary Stabilization be
open for public comment and/or updating and revision to incorporate BMP and process updates and to
allow for alignment with the renewed NCG01.
® 8