PTVE Comments on NCG050000

pactivW
evergreen
May 15, 2023
Via Email [brittany.cook(aD_ncdenr.govl
Brittany Cook
Stormwater Program
NCDEQ — DEMLR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
RE: Pactiv Evergreen comments to draft permit NC DEQ General Storm Water Permit
No. NCGO50000
Dear Ms. Cook:
Pactiv Evergreen Inc. ("PTVE") appreciates this opportunity to provide comment on draft
General Storm Water Permit No. NCGO50000 (the "Draft Permit"), which covers establishments
primarily engaged in activities classified as paperboard containers and boxes (SIC 265) and
rubber and miscellaneous products (SIC 30), among others. PTVE, including subsidiaries
Evergreen Packaging LLC and Pactiv LLC, operates facilities under these SIC codes that are
potentially covered by the proposed Draft Permit located in Raleigh, Greensboro, Mooresville,
Kinston, Aberdeen, and Waynesville North Carolina, and directly employs over 1,250 workers at
these locations.
1. Comments on Draft Part EA — Required Baseline Monitoring
PTVE requests the following revisions to Part E.1 of the Draft Permit:
• Remove quarterly baseline parameter monitoring of Non-Polar Oil & Grease &
reduce frequency of Non-Polar Oil & Grease sampling from quarterly to annual.
The required baseline parameter monitoring requirements proposed in the Draft
Permit appear to largely rely upon and reflect USEPA's 2021 Multi-Sector General
Permit ("MSGP"), which incorporated recommendations from a study by the
National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine. However, USEPA's 2021 MSPG does not include a baseline
parameter monitoring requirement for oil and grease.
NCDEQ has proposed more stringent requirements in the Draft Permit that than
what is in USEPA's 2021 MSGP, or in recent permit renewals issued by other states
in USEPA Region IV. Georgia, for example, issued a MSGP permit impacting these
industrial sectors in 2022 which only requires annual sampling without benchmark
monitoring. We do not believe that baseline monitoring for oil and grease is
appropriate for these industrial sectors.

PTVE Comments on Draft Permit No. NCG050000
Ms. Cook
Page 2
To bring the Draft Permit in line with the USEPA and Georgia MSGPs, PTVE
requests that NCDEQ replace the proposed quarterly sampling and parameter
monitoring requirement in Part EA with an annual "report only" monitoring
requirement.
Limit the requirements to track new motor oil and hydraulic oil usage and conduct
sampling of non-polar oil and grease to vehicle maintenance areas with potential
exposures to stormwater (e.g., outdoor and uncovered activities) and include a
definition of"vehicle maintenance areas" in "P
the Draft Permit.
As proposed, the Draft Permit would require that facilities: (1) track average monthly
usage of new motor and hydraulic oil use for vehicle maintenance; and (2) for that
facilities with vehicle or equipment maintenance areas in which more than 55
gallons of new motor oil and hydraulic fluid is used per month when averaged over
the calendar year, conduct quarterly non-polar oil and grease sampling and
benchmark parameter monitoring. As drafted, it appears that these proposed
requirements would apply regardless of whether a facility's vehicle maintenance
areas are located entirely covered or indoors or otherwise lack potential exposure to
stormwater.
Applying these requirements to vehicle maintenance areas without potential
exposure to stormwater goes beyond the scope of the permitting stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity. PTVE therefore requests that these
requirements be limited to vehicle maintenance areas with potential exposure to
industrial stormwater.
PTVE also requests that a definition of vehicle maintenance areas be added to the
Draft Permit that clarifies that the affected areas are limited to outdoor/exposed
areas, similar to the definition of vehicle maintenance activities in NCDEQ's 2018
General Permit, as shown below:
Vehicle Maintenance Activity. Vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical
repairs, painting, fueling, lubrication, vehicle cleaning operations, or
airport deicing operations. For the purposes of this permit, vehicle
maintenance activity includes equipment maintenance that uses
hydraulic oil and that is stored or used outside, or otherwise
exposed to stormwater. [Emphasis added]
A proposed definition of Vehicle Maintenance Area follows:
Vehicle Maintenance Area. For the purposes of this permit a Vehicle
Maintenance Area is an area dedicated to vehicle rehabilitation,
mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, lubrication, vehicle cleaning
operations, or airport deicing operations that is located outside, or
otherwise exposed to stormwater.

PTVE Comments on Draft Permit No. NCG050000
Ms. Cook
Page 3
2. Comments on Draft Part E.2 — Baseline Sampling Benchmarks
PTVE requests the following revisions to Part E.2 of the Draft Permit:
• Remove benchmark values for Total Suspended Solids ("TSS"), PH, and_Carbon
Oxygen Demand ("COD").
USEPA's 2021 MSGP does not set benchmark values for TSS, pH, and COD, but
rather establishes "report only" requirements for these parameters. Nor have other
states (such as Georgia in its 2022 MSPG) established benchmark values for these
parameters. PTVE requests that the proposed benchmark values for these
parameters be removed from the Draft Permit.
PTVE also offers the comment that NCDEQ does not provide sufficient rationale to
support the proposed levels of the benchmark values in the Draft Permit. The
values for TSS, COD and Oil and Grease are unreasonably low and inconsistent
with benchmarks established in other states beyond Region IV. For example, in
California (which, unlike USEPA's 2021 MSPG, establishes benchmark values for
TSS), the benchmark value for TSS is 400 mg/L. Therefore, California's established
benchmark value for TSS is 4 times greater than the proposed benchmark value of
100 mg/L in NCDEQ's Draft Permit. According the Fact Sheet that NCDEQ provided
in support of the Draft Permit, the proposed TSS benchmark of 100 mg/L is based
on a study from the National Urban Runoff Program ("NURP") in 1983, and NCDEQ
takes the position that this study serves as a bases for benchmarks in other
industrial stormwater permits that include TSS monitoring. PTVE does not believe
that applying this 40-year-old study is appropriate for setting the proposed TSS
limits. To date, PTVE has not identified a benchmark value as low as 100 mg/L in
any other state's stormwater permits for paperboard containers and boxes (SIC
265) and rubber and miscellaneous products (SIC 30). Further, most state MSGPs
covering these industry sectors (including the 2022 MSGP issued by Georgia) do
not include TSS monitoring limits at all.
NCDEQ's Fact Sheet also indicates that the proposed benchmark value for COD of
120 mg/L I the Draft Permit is based on wastewater limits. The Fact Sheet does not
provide further clarification of what type of wastewater limits were used as the basis
for the proposal. PTVE's offers this comment on the basis that applying industrial
wastewater limits to stormwater discharges is not an appropriate way to establish
baseline values, as these are distinctly media with different characteristics and
treatment options. Further, in our experience, industrial wastewater limits for
industry sectors covered by SIC 265 and SIC 30 are far higher than 120 mg/L.
For the reasons stated herein, PTVE requests that the proposed baseline values be
removed from the Draft Permit until more representative data is obtained from these
industry sectors to establish proper baseline limits. Importantly, we believe this
proposed rationale is consistent with the intent of USEPA's 2021 MSGP and also
consistent with MSGPs in other states that are using this permit cycle to gather data
on TSS, pH, and COD values in the stormwater discharge for these industrial
sectors.

PTVE Comments on Draft Permit No. NCG050000
Ms. Cook
Page 4
3. Comments on Draft Parts E-6 through E-8 —Tiered Responses:
PTVE requests the following revisions to the Parts E-6 through E-8 of the Draft Permit:
• Remove Tiered Responses for Monitored Benchmark Values Until Appropriate
Benchmark Values Are Established.
The Draft Permit appears to base the proposed tiered responses on USEPA's
additional implementation measures ("AIM") for benchmark exceedances. However,
the 2018 General Permit does not establish benchmark values TSS, pH, or COD for
operations in these industrial sectors (other than for vehicle maintenance areas with
potential exposure to stormwater), and it is PTVE's position that the Draft Permit
should establish report-only indicator monitoring without tiered responses and
benchmark values, consistent with USEPA's 2021 MSGP.
Consistent with the request that benchmark values be removed from the DRAFT
Permit, the tiered responses for monitored benchmark values proposed in Parts E-6
through E-8 of the Draft Permit also should be removed. As further described above,
establishing tiered responses for monitored parameter values is not consistent with
USEPA's 2021 MSGP or other states (e.g., Georgia), which establish indicator
monitoring (as opposed to benchmark monitoring) for TSS, pH, and COD for these
industry sectors.
PTVE also notes that, where other states have established benchmark values and
associated tiered responses for these industry sectors (such as in California), the
tiered responses are far less burdensome than what is proposed in this Draft Permit.
In California, for example, before a permitted facility triggers the tiered response
requirements, it must have two exceedances of the benchmark at a single outfall or
an exceedance of an annual average benchmark for the entire facility (all outfalls
included), and the tiered response does not require agency notification or an
increased frequency of sampling. In comparison, the proposed Tier One Response in
North Carolina's Draft Permit would be triggered by a single benchmark value
exceedance at any single outfall and would require notification to NCDEQ. Further,
the proposed Tier Two Response would require increasing the monitored frequency
from quarterly to monthly.
PTVE requests that the proposed tiered responses be removed from the Draft Permit
along with the proposed benchmark values or, in the alternative, that the Tiered
Responses be revised to be less burdensome on the regulated community (e.g.,
remove notification requirements, modify triggers for tiered response, and reduce the
increased frequency requirements).

PTVE Comments on Draft Permit No. NCG050000
Ms. Cook
Page 5
4. Comments on Draft Part B-10 —Solvent Management Plan.
PTVE requests the following revisions to Part B-10 of the Draft Permit:
• Remove the Requirement for a Solvent Management Plan.
NCDEQ's Fact Sheet does not include a rationale the proposed addition of a
requirement to prepare and implement a solvent management plan in the Draft
Permit. PTVE requests that this proposed requirement be removed because, where
solvents are stored and used exclusively indoors, such use poses an insignificant
risk of exposure or impact to stormwater. PTVE believe that the proposed
requirement is beyond the scope of the stormwater permitting program and (by
extension) unduly burdensome on the regulated community.
PTVE genuinely appreciates NCDEQ's consideration of the comments provided herein. Please
feel free to contact either me at Mike.Rehorapactivevergreen.com or Mr. Glenn Rogers at
[e-mail] if you have questions or would like to discuss PTVE's
comments on the Draft Permit further.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Rehor
PTVE Director EHS - Environmental
cc: Glenn Rogers (PTVE)