Peter Daniel Jr Comments on NCG05

NC )Chamber
May 17, 2023
Via Electronic Mail: [e-mail]
Brittany Cook
Stormwater Program
NCDEQ—DEMLR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
RE: Comments on Draft NC DEQ General Storm Water Permit No. NCG050000
Dear Ms. Cook:
On behalf of the statewide business community, the North Carolina Chamber is grateful for the
opportunity to provide comments on the Draft General Storm Water Permit No. NCG050000
(the"Draft Permit"), which impacts a broad range of manufacturing activities and employers in
North Carolina.
The NC Chamber is the state's largest broad-based business advocacy organization representing
over 27 industry segments with thousands of employees in North Carolina. We understand that
environmental stewardship and economic success go hand-in-hand, and our state's target to
repeat the#1 ranking for business is on the line this year. Respectfully, we write to you today to
address several concerns in this Draft Permit which we believe could cause undue burdens on job
creators, slow economic development with processing delays, and bring the future General
Permit into question due to several new conditions in the Draft Permit that exceed federal
requirements.
The NC Chamber is also cognizant that the Department, along with the private sector, is facing
staffing, retention, and turnover challenges due to the workforce shortage in our state. By adding
unnecessary and non-value-adding requirements into the Draft Permit in excess of US EPA
requirements, we believe that this will increase the time spent on processing, reporting, and
unfortunately increase delays for both the Department and job creators. We respectfully request
that when considering adding any additions to the Draft Permit, efficiency and workload for
permit reviewers be considered due to the delays they could create for the business community.
The NC Chamber also wishes to comment that many of the conditions in the Draft Permit
outlined below in our comments are in direct conflict with the Administrative Procedures Act,
and some of these policy requirements in the draft permit may be considered a rule. If these
policy changes could be considered rules, we refer to G.S. 150B-19.3, which limits the
Department's authority to enforce rules promulgated and adopted by the Environmental
Management Commission that exceed federal rule or law unless strictly authorized by General
Statute. Broadly, we have concerns that new provisions which exceed federal requirements in the

Draft Permit could be considered rules which may bring the General Permit into question under
the strict requirements in the Administrative Procedures Act in the future.
154E-19.3. Limitation on certain environmental rules. (a)An agency authorized to
implement and enforce State and federal environmental laws may not adopt a rule for the
protection of the environment or natural resources that imposes a more restrictive
standard, limitation, or requirement than those imposed by federal law or rule, if a
federal law or rule pertaining to the same subject matter has been adopted, unless
adoption of the rule is required by one of the subdivisions of this subsection.
1. Comments B-10—Solvent Management Plan
The NC Chamber requests the following revisions to Part B-10 of the Draft Permit:
• Remove the Requirement for a Solvent Management Plan
There is no rationale for the proposed addition of a requirement to implement a solvent
management plan in the Draft Permit. The NC Chamber requests this requirement be
removed from the Draft Permit. Solvents are used and stored in covered industries
exclusively indoors. This requirement is above and beyond any relation to industrial
discharge covered under this General Permit for stormwater. Solvents are already covered
under NC Oil Terminal Registrations and SPCC. Adding this requirement into an Industrial
Stormwater Permit represents a burdensome and non-value-added component which falls
outside of the scope of the General Permit.
We respectfully request this section be removed from the Draft Permit.
2. Comments EA —Required Baseline Monitoring
The NC Chamber requests the following revisions to Part E-1 of the Draft Permit:
• Strike quarterly baseline parameter monitoring of Non Polar Oil & Grease& reduce
sampling of Non-Polar Oil & Grease from quarterly to annual
The required baseline parameter monitoring requirements proposed in the Draft Permit
generally reflect USEPA's 2021 Multi Sector General Permit("MSGP"). The("MSGP")
does not include baseline parameter monitoring requirements for oil and grease. This
requirement in the Draft Permit is in excess of what USEPA requires in their 2021 ("MSGP")
and calls the permit into question with G.S. 150B-19.3.
We do not believe that requiring quarterly sampling and benchmark monitoring is necessary
for the General Permit NCG050000. Instead, we respectfully request that NCDEQ replace
the proposed quarterly sampling and parameter monitoring in Part E. 1 with an annual

"report only" requirement to bring the permit into compliance and in-line with federal
requirements.
• Limit requirements to track new motor oil and hydraulic oil used and conduct sampling
of non-polar oil and grease to vehicle maintenance areas with potential exposures to
stormwater and weather to outdoor uncovered areas and include a definition of"vehicle
maintenance area" in the Draft Permit
The proposed Draft Permit would require tracking and reporting of motor oil and hydraulic
oil, and for usage exceeding 55 gallons per month, conduct quarterly non-polar oil and grease
sampling and benchmark parameter monitoring even if the maintenance area is located
indoors, covered, or lacks potential exposure to stormwater.
Requiring this tracking and sampling of maintenance in areas not exposed to stormwater is
beyond the scope of industrial storm water discharges for industrial operations.
The NC Chamber requests that a definition of"Vehicle Maintenance Area" be included to
limit the scope of the requirements to outdoor areas exposed to stormwater, similar to the
Vehicle Maintenance Activities definition already included in the 2018 General Permit.
3. Comments E-2—Baseline Sampling Benchmarks
The NC Chamber requests for following revisions to Part E-2 of the Draft Permit:
• Remove benchmark values for Total Suspended Solids ("TSS"), PK and Chemical
Oxygen Demand ("COD").
USEPA's 2021 MSGP does not set benchmark values for TSS, pH, and COD, but does have
a"report only" requirement for those parameters. Other states such as Georgia in its recent
2022 MSPG do not have benchmark values for those parameters in their permit.
The values for the stated parameters are incredibly low, exceed federal requirements, and are
listed with insufficient rationale. While the USEPA does not require benchmark reporting for
these parameters, states like California, which do have benchmark reporting, have levels
significantly higher for TSS at 400 mg/l compared to the 100 mg/l proposed in the Draft
Permit. The NC Chamber also notes that there must be further research done if the
Department wishes to enforce benchmark values for these parameters instead of relying on
dated studies such as the 1983 "National Urban Runoff program" ("NURP"). Since the
USEPA does not require benchmark values, North Carolina DEQ should either fund a
scientific study to base any proposed rules on, or rely on USEPA precedent, which at this
time does not require any benchmark values, only"report only" requirements.
i
1

The NC Chamber respectfully requests that the benchmark values for TSS, pH, and COD be
removed to ensure that the General Permit when enacted does not exceed federal
requirements in the USEPA's 2021 MSGP.
4. Comments E-6 through E-8—Tiered Responses
The NC Chamber requests the following revisions to Parts E-6 through E-8 of the Draft Permit:
• Remove Tiered Responses for Monitored Benchmark Values Until Appropriate
Benchmark Values are Available and Established.
The Draft Permit contains tiered responses for monitored benchmark values for benchmark
exceedances. The 2018 General Permit does not contain benchmark values for TSS, pH, or
COD for operations in the sectors covered in NCGO50000 other than outdoor or stormwater
expose vehicle maintenance areas as mentioned above.
Since the USEPA in their 2021 MSGP only requires"report only"for the following
parameters, the tiered responses for benchmark monitoring in the Draft Permit are
unnecessary and exceed USEPA requirements. Consistent with the baseline sampling
comments in E.2, the tiered responses in E-6, E-7, and E-8 exceed requirements of federal
law and directly conflict with G.S. 150B-19.3.
The NC Chamber requests that the Tiered Responses be removed from the Draft Permit
entirely to ensure that the conditions in the General Permit do not exceed existing federal
guidance and place unlawful requirements on the regulated community.
5. General Comments on E:Analytical Monitoring of Stormwater Discharges
The Draft Permit's Analytical Monitoring requirements result in a significant change when
compared to the 2018 General Permit for businesses covered under the General Permit. We
believe that the change will lead to a significant increase in new eDMR registrants, and many
of our members do not have the resources or processes in place to implement the new
requirements when the permit is issued. We also believe this will increase the administrative
burden on the Department.
To respectfully give the business community adequate time to adjust to this change, we
request the following:
Amend applicability of new Analytical Monitoring Requirements to no earlier than the end
of the first full quarter occurring 12 months after the issuance of the permit or initiate
analytical monitoring no later than 15 months after the issuance of the permit
The NC Chamber believes that this will allow the regulated community to budget for
additional resources and costs to comply with this requirement, give time to develop a

sampling plan, and ensure the Department has adequate time to process the expected influx
of new eDMR accounts.
The NC Chamber appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this important regulatory
program and respectfully requests consideration of the comments and the potential impacts on
job creators included herein.
Respectfully,
/eter T. Daniel Jr.
Director of Government Affairs