United States Office of Water Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 December 2018 Agency

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms ...... iv

Foreword ...... v

1. General ...... 1-1 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking ...... 1-3 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking...... 1-55 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking ...... 1-64

2. Permit Application Requirements ...... 2-1 2.a - Purpose and Scope (40 CFR 122.1) ...... 2-2 2.b - NPDES Program Definitions - General (40 CFR 122.2)...... 2-3 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2) ...... 2-4 2.b.ii - NPDES Program Definition for Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2) – Reserved . 2-29 2.b.iii - NPDES Program Definition for New Discharger (40 CFR 122.2) ...... 2-30 2.b.iv - NPDES Program Definition for Whole Effluent Toxicity (40 CFR 122.2) – Reserved ...... 2-31 2.c - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - General (40 CFR 122.21) ...... 2-32 2.c.i - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NPDES Contact Information (40 CFR 122.21(a)(2)) ...... 2-35 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))...... 2-36 2.c.iii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21) – Reserved ...... 2-44 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i)) .... 2-45 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix) ...... 2-55 2.c.vi - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting of Electronic Mail Address (40 CFR 122.21) ...... 2-70 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))...... 2-71 2.c.viii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Cooling Water Intake Structure Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(9)) ...... 2-80 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix)) ...... 2-84

i National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3. Water Quality-Based Permitting Process – Reserved ...... 3-1 3.a - Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved ...... 3-2 3.b - Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved ...... 3-3 3.c - Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved ...... 3-4 3.d - Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k)) ...... 3-5 3.e - Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l)) – Reserved ...... 3-11 3.f - Design Flow for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR 122.45(b)) – Reserved 3-12

4. Permit Objection, Documentation, and Process Efficiencies – Reserved ...... 4-1 4.a - Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44) – Reserved ...... 4-1 4.b - Public Notice Requirements - General (40 CFR 124.10(c)) ...... 4-2 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c)) ... 4-8 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c)) ...... 4-41 4.b.iii - Public Notice Requirements - Ways to Post Permits and Fact Sheets Online/Linkage to ECHO (40 CFR 124.10(c)) ...... 4-50 4.c - Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56) – Reserved ...... 4-55 4.d. Deletion of 40 CFR 125.3(a)(1)(ii) ...... 4-56

5. Vessels Exclusion (40 CFR 122.3(a)) – Reserved ...... 5-1

6. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(a)(2)) – Reserved ...... 6-1

7. Overall Burden ...... 7-1

8. Permit Application Comments Unrelated to Changes in Proposed Rule (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146)...... 8-1 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1...... 8-2 8.b - Permit Application Comments - Form 2A ...... 8-10 8.c - Permit Application Comments - Form 2B ...... 8-15 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C ...... 8-16 8.e - Permit Application Comments - Form 2D ...... 8-30 8.f - Permit Application Comments - Form 2E...... 8-33 8.g - Permit Application Comments - Form 2F ...... 8-36 8.h - Permit Application Comments - Form 2S ...... 8-41

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

8.i - General - Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Permit Applications ...... 8-44

9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking ...... 9-1

Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes ...... A-1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

ACRONYMS

BMP Best Management Practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIU Categorical Industrial User CWA Clean Water Act CWIS Cooling Water Intake Structure DCN Document Control Number ICR Information Collection Request NAICS North American Industrial Classification System NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSCIU Nonsignificant Categorical Industrial User POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works PGP Pesticide General Permit SIC Standard Industrial Classification SIU Significant Industrial User

iv National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

FOREWORD

This document provides responses to all significant comments submitted on the topics included in the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates final rule. This rule finalizes a subset of revisions proposed on May 18, 2016 in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates proposed rule (81 FR 31343).

As explained in the Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda and the preamble to the final rule, the EPA is taking action on the proposed revisions in two separate but related final actions. Specifically, this first final rule includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application); permit applications; and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA contact information and web addresses for electronic databases, updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents, and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable.

The EPA is not finalizing the proposed changes to 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) due to the very recent (Dec. 4, 2018) enactment of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which exempts discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel from NPDES permitting requirements consistent with the existing regulatory language at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a). If the EPA determines as it implements the new Act that changes to the definition are warranted, it will make any such changes in a separate regulatory action.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

v National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

The EPA’s proposal was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31343) and the public comment period closed on August 2, 2016, after a 15-day extension (81 FR 41507, June 27, 2016). All submitted comments are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2016-0145 and in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. The telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426 and the telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566- 1744. The Water Docket assigned a unique Document Control Number (DCN) to each comment submittal with the following format: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376-xxxx, where the four-digit number at the end is unique to that comment submittal.

The Table of Contents provides a list of comment topics covered in this document. To organize the comments and to facilitate EPA’s responses, EPA classified comment submittals received by topic. Within a specific topic or subtopic, the comment excerpts may be sorted so that similar comment issues follow each other. If a specific comment submittal addressed multiple topics, EPA subdivided the submittal by topic. Comments or portions of comments assigned to specific topics are referred to as “comment excerpts.” All individual comment excerpts classified to a specific topic are reproduced in this document within the chapter or subchapter corresponding to that topic and EPA’s response to that set of comment excerpts is provided in a written response essay at the start of each comment topic chapter. These response essays correspond to categories of issues submitted on the proposed rule topics finalized in this first action, the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates final rule. For efficiency purposes, where a commenter brings up the applicable issue, EPA may refer to or cross-reference a response essay, rather than repeat the same answer multiple times throughout the response to comment document.

To support the reader in finding and understanding the comments and their responses, EPA has provided the following as part of this document:

• A list of acronyms used throughout the comment response document.

• The comment excerpts and EPA’s responses by comment topic.

• A comment response index listing the comment submittals ordered by the Document Control Number(s) (DCN). The reader can search for a specific commenter’s comment excerpts using the DCNs listed in Attachment A.

While EPA endeavored to be accurate and consistent in assigning comment excerpts to topics and subtopics, and in cross-referencing other relevant responses, some excerpts may have content that overlaps multiple topics. Accordingly, readers may find it helpful to read this entire

vi National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments document to obtain EPA’s response regarding a given general topic. Moreover, in many instances, particular responses presented in this Response to Comments Document include cross- references to other portions of the administrative record, such as the preamble or elsewhere in the Response to Comments Document, where the commenter can find additional information. All issues on which the Agency is taking final action are addressed in the rulemaking record. Accordingly, this Response to Comments Document, together with the preamble and the rest of the administrative record should be considered collectively as the Agency’s response to all the significant comments submitted on the proposed rule topics finalized in this final rule.

Some responses in this Response to Public Comments Document may not reflect the language in the preamble or final rule in every respect. Where the response is in conflict with the preamble or the final rule, the language in the final preamble and rule controls and should be used for purposes of understanding the scope, requirements, and basis of the final rule. Although portions of the preamble to the final rule are paraphrased in this document where useful to add clarity to responses, the preamble itself remains the definitive statement of the rationale for the final rule.

This final rule, is supported, in part, by the following:

• The Information Collection Request (ICR) and ICR Supporting Statement for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule, which can be found in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629.

The primary contact regarding questions or comments on this document is:

Frank Sylvester Phone: (202) 564-1279 Email: [email protected]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division (MC4203M) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460

vii National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

1. General

Commenter Name: Jennifer C. Chavez Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0411-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

In general (with specific exceptions discussed below) we support this important rulemaking effort. However, the proposed rule changes do not go far enough to tackle the underlying problems, and in some cases the proposed rule fails to include a role for citizen participation or enforcement. We urge EPA to address these shortcomings in the final rule.

Commenter Name: David Sultana Commenter Affiliation: Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0023-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

SRP appreciates the agency's efforts to delete certain provisions of the NPDES program that are no longer in effect and to update the regulations to be consistent with recent judicial decisions.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the general support expressed by commenters for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates rulemaking, proposed on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31343). The Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda explained that the EPA would be finalizing the proposed rule in two separate but related actions. This first final rule addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016 and modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable.

1-1 1. General

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Some comment excerpts in this General issue category include supplemental or introductory information provided by commenters without information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule. As such, they are not considered to be substantive or significant comments on the proposed rule itself, and therefore, do not require responses. Regarding the commenters that indicate that their letters contain specific comments on the proposed rule, see the relevant essays of this comment response document for responses to substantive comment excerpts.

Regarding the commenter suggesting additional revisions to address roles for citizen participation or enforcement, the EPA did not propose such revisions. Thus, this comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking and does not require a response.

1-2 1. General

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

Commenter Name: Anonymous Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0020 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Let's keep discharge water clean!

Commenter Name: Anonymous Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0023 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I am primarily concerned that this rule strengthen the enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Existing permits have not been enforced or updated on a regular basis, and I have read countless stories of refineries, power plants and other major industries dumping toxic materials into the water. These infractions not only create serious health issues, but they also contaminate recreational waters, destroying places of beauty and relaxation for many Americans.

Thank you for taking action to strengthen the oversight of NPDES permits.

Commenter Name: S.B.K. American citizen Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0024 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you for strengthening how you will oversee NPDES permits. With as many as 25% of major source water permits not being updated in a timely manner, it's time EPA stepped in to protect public health where states have failed to do what they needed to do.

Commenter Name: Anonymous Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-3 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0031-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I strongly support the EPA's proposal to strengthen its oversight of NPDES permits.

The permit renewal process is vital to ensuring that stringent limits are in place based on modern pollution control technology. The states have failed in their responsibilities to both enforce and renew permits, with over 25% of major source water permits not being updated as required and some facilities operating under permits that haven't been updated in decades. This extremely lax oversight has allowed coal-fired power plants, refineries and other major pollution sources to contaminate water with toxins such as arsenic and mercury, endangering wildlife and threatening the health of all who rely on our waters for drinking, food sources and recreation..

Polluters will attempt to keep lax enforcement of their permits by the states and to deter any strong actions by the EPA. I urge the EPA to fulfill its mandate to protect human health and the environment and to impose and envorce the requirements and regulations under the Clean Water Act where the states have failed.

Commenter Name: Helmut Maier Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0033-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is incomprehensible that our State and Federal Governments allow polluters to ignore existing laws. Considering the knowledge gained over the last 25 years about the impact of pollutants on humans and the environment, laws should be strengthened and vigorously enforced. I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a safe environment that does not threaten their health with heavy metals and other pollutants. I hope you do too.

Commenter Name: Patricia Litchy Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0035-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I am concerned about clean water, especially now as newspapers report about contaminated water(s) almost daily.

1-4 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Claudia Zappa-Martin Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0037-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Please young people listen to us. You who are in the position to make changes I pray you understand. I have grandchildren and I want to enjoy and have a long and healthy life. Act now and swiftly and thoroughly. Please don't be the part of the process that may take this away from them. I'm 68 so everybody before my generation to me is young. I pray you hear this plea. I don't have to tell you that clean water is our most important resource. Thank you for listening.

Commenter Name: Catherine Smith Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0040-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you for strengthening how you will oversee NPDES permits. please do all you can to strengthen protection for our families.

Commenter Name: Eric Spray Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0041-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Clean air and water that is necessary for survival has to be protected for its a finite commodity - once it is polluted, it can no longer support life.

Commenter Name: Mary King Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0042-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-5 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

We the people of United States have to pay to have our garbage , waste , pollution removed. Why don't they?!! This is the 21 century and technology abounds to leave a better world for our species , our children , a better future for the world. Please do your job and insist corporations clean up their toxic waste from our water. Water is our most precious resource . We must secure and protect it .

Commenter Name: Joseph Sipp Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0043-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Premits are vital to implementation of clean water standards. The polutants releases such as mercury, heavy metals, sulfur and hydrocloric acid and low levels of uranium must be controled due to the long residual that gradually makes it way into our air and food change. Please accelerate inforcement of the permit system.

Commenter Name: Beth McGee Commenter Affiliation: Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0045-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We strongly support the proposed revisions to the NPDES regulations as they will greatly improve the transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of the permitting program. Below we highlight revisions that, from our perspective, are particularly important in this regard.

In closing, we thank EPA for initiating these revisions to the NPDES regulations. If fully adopted, we believe these proposed changes will make the NPDES program more efficient and effective and facilitate greater participation from interested stakeholders. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

1-6 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Carol Plantamura Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0047-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

EPA has proposed to strengthen its oversight of the state permits to make sure our lakes, rivers, and streams are protected. Between now and August 2nd, EPA is collecting comments from the public on their plan. Polluters will fight back to keep lax enforcement of their permits, but by submitting a comment, you'll show EPA the public supports clean water and making polluters follow the law.

Commenter Name: Cheryl Genet Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0048-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is beyond me why the public should even have to ask to keep our water clean and to have zero tolerance for polluters.

Commenter Name: Diane Varney-Parker Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0054-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Clean water is necessary for all humans to survive. It is a basic right for all Americans (and humans). It should be protected above profit potential and potential pollutors need to be clearly regulated and held accountable for any negative impacts they may cause to water sources.

Commenter Name: Connie Anderson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0060-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-7 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Rules are rules and clean water is our lifeblood! It's beyond comprehension that I even have to submit a comment to remind you as a regulating agency to safeguard our water! As it stands however, and for whatever reasons, people break rules or they are lazy in following them.

Commenter Name: Emma Williams Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0061-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Many people travel out-of-state to visit family and friends or as vacationers visiting new areas of the USA! We ALL need to be sure that the water we drink and use is clean and environmentally safe for all public and private uses!

Commenter Name: Phyllis Lager Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0065-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Fresh, clean water is s limited resource that we as well as animal require to survive. It is unacceptable to allow pollution of this vital resourse. Companies and individuals that have not promptly or properly renewing their permits should immediacy have their access terminated. That is how the normal person would be treated and it should be no different for corporations.

Commenter Name: Jenefer Ellingston Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0067-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Why does the EPA 'drag its heels' on enforcing the Law ... especially when more and more damage is done ... while EPA ignores affected communities. Non-potable water is not an 'incidental' problem.

1-8 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Ulla Linenthal Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0069-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Hi! This is Ulla. Fresh water is a precious resource; I conserve every drop of treated water in our household per my frugal Finnish upbringing. Now let's make the big consumers and polluters toe the line with pre-existing regulations. How could I help? Please let me know. Ulla Linenthal

Commenter Name: Francis Schilling Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0072-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Every time we as a nation allow self-interested entities to influence public regulatory policy, we as a nation are harmed. The American people want our regulatory agencies to protect *US* - not some bloated corporate bottom line.

Thus, you have my sincere thanks for strengthening how you will oversee NPDES permits.

Commenter Name: Kris Sigford Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0080-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

MCEA strongly supports EPA’s proposed clarifications to its NPDES permitting regulations, but notes that most of the changes are already required under its existing regulations. MCEA’s experience over two decades of close review of NPDES permits issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is that a clear need exists for USEPA to clarify pertinent regulations and provide stronger oversight of state agency implementation. Minnesota’s failure to develop an adequate regulatory program for establishing water quality based effluent limits in NPDES permits led MCEA to file a Petition for Corrective Action (“de-delegation” petition) in 2009. This petition is still pending before Region 5. Many of the concerns raised in MCEA’s petition are at least partly addressed by EPA’s proposed clarifications. As such, MCEA supports

1-9 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments the proposed rule revisions and offers specific comments, and in some cases proposes additional or alternative rule language.

Commenter Name: Mollie Brewton Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0084-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I am all in favor of your move to have water permits really, actually enforced. If there are laws in effect, they should be enforced. Period.

Commenter Name: John Young Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0085-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Build up our public spirit by moving swiftly and decisively. Seeking our input, letting us know we're heard, that we're important, that we can make a difference in such critical areas of our common life as good water for all the good people of this great land of national, public resources and riches.

Commenter Name: David Feeger Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0088-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It's the EPA\s job to protect our waters as much as it's their job to protect our air. Stop playing around and go after big business that has proven to not care about the citizens of this great country.

Commenter Name: Suzanne Cooper Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-10 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0103-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

As a physician who commonly diagnoses cancer in young adults and children, I implore you to clean up pollutants and toxins in our water. I strongly feel that these toxins are contributing to an increased incidence of cancer in our youth. Please do not place corporate greed above the health of our children and future generations. Polluters, whether they be corporations or individuals must be held accountable and must follow established rules and guidelines Suzanne Cooper MD.

Commenter Name: Terry Laplante Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0106-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

The waterways and drinking water in the state of Florida are in dire need of greater protection. I do not feel safe swimming in the springs, lakes or ocean. I do not feel safe drinking tap water. I do not feel safe eating the seafood. Enough is enough and it is time to take action. Stop the thermal discharges from utilities that are contributing to algae blooms etc.

Commenter Name: Coco Gordon Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0108-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Stop the sham, you are giving regulation a bad name. It's important to me that the water in my areas and everywhere in the country be safe for drinking, growing our organic food, washing our hands, bathing and showering, and for those who prepare our food for sale, restaurant kitchens, and all other public water serving facilities including recreation. With some facilities operating under permits that haven't been updated in decades, it is not possible to ensure that our health is protected. You wouldn't get away with not keeping water permits up to date in our CO town, itour use would be cut off. How dare you not protect water safety of the entire country?

Commenter Name: Richard Ely Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-11 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0109-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

For far too long Americans have taken for granted that they have, and will continue to have clean potablewater. The past year has shown that such is not the case. As in so many other ways, business has focused on its profit line while ignoring what it may be doing to our environment and citizens. Please do all you can to assure a clean healthy water future.

Commenter Name: Chris Wright Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0110-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Water is a finite resource, and must do our best to provide good, safe water to everyone. It is time EPA stepped in to protect public health where states have failed to do what they needed to do.

Commenter Name: John A. Coates Commenter Affiliation: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0111-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

FDEP supports updating EPA NPDES rules to enhance consistency, effectiveness, and efficiency, and to promote transparency and streamlined processes.

Commenter Name: Helen Hoffman Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0112-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

With all the problems we are now having in Florida with our water (from the Panhandle to Florida Bay to the ocean off Palm Beach, we need a closer watch on our water....we need to

1-12 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments bring water into the discussion with development, we need to bring water into the discussion with fossil fuel extraction, we need to bring water into the discussion with natural gas exploration, and we need to bring water into the discussion when violations continue to happen years and even decades after first permits are issued (i.e. FPL and Turkey Point). We must conclude the restoration of the Everglades, NOW, rather than the decades long plan still be followed. I have lived in Florida over 40 years and we were talking about restoration then!!! And, we are still having the same one...Meanwhile, urban sprawl has continued to move north from Miami Dade and ruining Broward and now, Palm Beach County. We must start thinking about our water sources and control where growth is allowed.

Start with enforcing the one thing we do have....the Clean Water Act.

Commenter Name: Sue Mackay Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0114-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Please Stop the greed and shortcuts to our own demise.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth Darden Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0115-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Laws are ment to be enforced. Stop enabling law breakers and just get tough. No one is going to let me off the hook if I do a "rolling stop". Right? Keep it simple. Don't cave under the big money threats, the public supports your doing your job! So go get tough!

Commenter Name: Colleen Kenyon Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0117-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-13 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

This is an important step forward. As water becomes a precious commodity worldwide, it's all the more crucial to fight back against Big Pollution. Your action is practical as well as ethical..thank you.

Commenter Name: Mary Stewart Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0118-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We know that many companies will not follow the law unless they are pushed. Strong enforcement is the only "push" available. Clean water is a human right. Companies should not be allowed to over-ride this right by dumping junk of any type in our water or into locations where the toxic material can seep into aquifers.

Commenter Name: Susan Rogers Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0119-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It's time for clean water! Now! Please take action.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Ross Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0122-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you for strengthening how you will oversee NPDES permits. It is vitally important that out water sources are kept safe for humans and wildlife. It is very difficult to reverse the damage once a waterway is polluted.

Commenter Name: Fahim Zubair Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-14 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0124-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Given that a whopping 25% of permits are not updated when they should be, it's time EPA stepped in to protect public health where states have failed to do what they needed to do. We all need to work together to let power plant and other pollution-producing companies firmly know that not updating or enforcing their mandated water pollution permits is an unacceptable practice! Such practice goes directly against the cause of sustaining our planet and our environments for our future generations, a goal we should all work towards.

Commenter Name: Fahim Zubair Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0124-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you so much for listening to the public voice and let's take action against the malpractices of polluters today!

Commenter Name: Lawrence Riggs Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0125-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

It's important to me that the water in my area be safe for drinking, recreation and wildlife, and that all appropriate precautions be taken everywhere in the nation to avoid potential impacts on both human welfare and the ecological systems upon which we all depend. Delays will only increase the costs of remediation and make more difficult the job of holding those responsible accountable.

Commenter Name: Patricia Schutjer Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0126-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-15 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

The Flint, Michigan outrage has succeeded in waking Americans to what we had thought was a given in this country: a safe water supply. We must update and rework all of our structures for analysis, permits and enforcement immediately. Polluters have to be caught and stopped right away. Thank you.

Commenter Name: Bobbi Katz Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0129-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

What national treasure could be more important than clean, safe, water? Enforce the limits of outdated permits that some facilities have been continuing to use, endangering the supply of water for drinking, fishing and recreation..

Commenter Name: Kim Novak Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0134-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Water is essential to life, which means it MUST be cared for. Please make sure our lakes, rivers and streams are protected. We have a creek running through our property, so we know the value of keeping it protected.

Commenter Name: D.S. Kiefer Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0136-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

In New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation is seriously understaffed; permits are often just "extended" without change -- or if some public entity learns of DEC's intent to renew a permit, and submits comments, those comments go unacknowledged.

1-16 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Heather Lien Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0138-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I live near the shore of Superior Bay on the St. Louis river. I can see Lake Superior from my kitchen window. Water quality is very important to me. Please do everything in your power to limit water pollution. Thank you! Sincerely, Heather Lien

Commenter Name: Nancy Lowell Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0141-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Witness the debacle occurring now in South Florida where polluted water from Lake Okeechobee was released and has caused a massive and poisonous algal blooms. This has to stop and more stringent requirements must be implemented if our country is to have clean water.

Commenter Name: Eleanor Etter Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0146-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Water use permit requirements are in place for good reasons. Please take every action available to EPA to enforce water permit requirements, especially in those states with lax enforcement.

Commenter Name: Doretta Reisenweber Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0148-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-17 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The l970 Clean Water Act needs to be enforced. The CWA made a huge difference back then. If our clean water laws were enforced with the same urgency as decades ago, our water would not be polluted with toxins.

Commenter Name: Max Hjermstad Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0149-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I have been working in Madagascar to provide clean water for their citizens. Countless similar initiatives from organizations like Water.org and Engineers Without Borders are well aware of the human and ecological struggles that arise when water sources become polluted. Allowing big polluters to continue tainting water sources in the United States because of lax enforcement of in-place laws is an unacceptable step in the wrong direction, and it can only happen if we take for granted what so many other communities would give anything to have. For this reason, I support the initiative to increase enforcement of water permits.

Commenter Name: Lucia Maxwell Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0150-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Water is the most important source of life and Americans expect you to protect our water.

When I turn on the tap, I expect my water to be the highest possible quality.

Commenter Name: Mary Francis Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0151-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Strong rigorous EPA oversight of NPDES permits is critical for Public Health.

1-18 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Karen Belgard Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0154-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Our most precious and vital resource is water. Human beings (and most other animals) can live for up to two weeks without food; but we cannot exist without water for more than around 36 hours. Already the rumblings of water-related disputes can be heard all over the world, even here at home. It has been said that there will one day be wars over the scarcity of water, and I've come to believe that. Therefore, I believe that protecting this treasure with a firm hand must become a priority of the highest measure. You are all that stands between ordinary citizens who desperately need this water and the arrogant polluters who care so little for the legacy they create. For the sake of my grandchildren, great-grandchildren and all those who will come after us, I hope you are unwavering in your commitment to this public service. That's why I hope you will continue your work to strengthen oversight of big polluters. I'm sure you know who they are.

Commenter Name: Rasa Moss Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0155-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Glad to hear you'll be hank you for strengthening your oversight of NPDES permits. Please act quickly on protecting our water, our essential common good, in cases where states have been negligent or slip-shots--as in California. Thank you.

Commenter Name: John C. Pierson Commenter Affiliation: Department of the Navy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0157-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-19 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

DoD supports EPA's efforts to eliminate regulatory and application inconsistencies; improve permit documentation, transparency and oversight; clarify existing regulations; and remove outdated provisions from existing NPDES regulations.

Commenter Name: Timothy Pohle Commenter Affiliation: Airlines for America Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0189-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

In the main, A4A views the modifications contained in the Proposed Rule as positive and constructive clarifications of the Agency’s NPDES program regulations.

Commenter Name: Susan Hauser Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0198-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you for providing much needed oversight and clarification of NPDES permitting. NPDES permits are the main way of limiting damage done to public waterways by surface coal mining and power plants in Central Appalachia. Coal NPDES permits in the region are often insufficient to properly protect public rivers and streams. The region has suffered decades of degraded water quality due to the coal mining industry.

Commenter Name: D.M. Hunter Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0202-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Being an essential part of life, It's important to me that water be safe for drinking, recreation and most importantly the absolute necessary function it provides on so many levels.

1-20 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Diane J. Peterson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0203-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is heartening for me as an environmentalist to learn about the willingness of the federal government to correct Minnesota's lack of control on water quality. I favor swift and strong intervention by the EPA under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System rules. Compliance with pollution regulations needs to be strict and I would like the EPA to be a strong enforcer on matters of water quality in Minnesota. No more continuation of business as usual when there are expired permits in Minnesota!

Commenter Name: Teresa Trampe Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0204-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I STRONGLY support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rule to update National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rules, particularly the section that allows the EPA to act to protect water quality when a polluter “administratively continues” an expired permit. VERY EXCITING!

The EPA MUST be able to act efficiently, helping insure that once the EPA steps in the process moves quickly, so the state and polluters ability to cause delays is minimized.

Commenter Name: Pat Becchetti Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0207-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

The EPA’s new NPDES rule would allow EPA to step in and write strong permits as problems arise, without waiting until there is a crisis like we have now in Minnesota.

1-21 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Doretta Reisenweber Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0208-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Finally, I urge the EPA to adopt the proposed rule allowing the EPA to take action when a state fails to replace an expired, out-of-date NPDES water pollution permit. Decades of expired permits is unconscionable. And please, do not allow polluters or state agencies to delay this proposed rule change. We need it now. Generations present and future depend on your actions.

Commenter Name: Patty O'Keefe Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0210-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

To me, it's so simple. 40% of our waterways do not meet Clean Water Act standards. Most states have republican governors that do not value clean water and a healthy environment. If states are not going to make sure our most important resource stays clean, someone has to - and that body is the EPA. It has to be, because others are failing and failing badly.

Commenter Name: Kathryn Dorn Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0212-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Especially after the human-created lead contamination disaster in Flint came to light, we have to do everything we can to ensure that everyone has safe drinking water; no one should have to contend with refinery and factory pollution in their water in addition to the danger of old lead pipes.

Commenter Name: Evan Anderson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0214-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-22 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

I am a freshwater biologist, and I support additional oversight, as well as the ability to enforce the existing and future regulations on a national scale. I work in the waterways of the Midwest, and more needs to be done to protect current and future generations. Please do what you can for the safety and well being of all people, today and tomorrow. I'm thanking you now, and the brighter future certainly thanks you.

Commenter Name: Sharon Morris Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0217-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you for your prompt action on my concerns.

Commenter Name: Audrey Ross Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0219-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt: protect us from the vagaries of unregulated corporate greed and indifference and predatory capitalism lacking substantial oversight. we are being made ill for profit and the government forced to pick up the medical expense. it's just shameful

Commenter Name: Deborah Garvey Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0222-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

It's important to me as a citizen and a consumer that the water in my area, and all over the country, be safe to drink and for recreation. With some facilities operating under source-water

1-23 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments permits that haven't been updated in decades, it is not possible to guarantee that public health is protected.

Commenter Name: George and Frances Alderson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0223-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Again we thank you for this constructive proposal. Please strengthen it and put it into effect as soon as possible

Commenter Name: Lesley Pillsbury Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0229-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

.I am very concerned about the quality of our water, both for drinking and for recreation.

Commenter Name: Sheila Rekdal Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0230-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Any Corporation that reaps the natural resources of this land, have to be held responsible for the messes they create in in the production of the products that afford them to take the Profits. They also should NOT be able to off shore the Profits to escape paying Taxes. Those taxes pay for the infrastructure that allows them to get their products to market as well as allow the people who work for them to live.

Commenter Name: Robert Petersen Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-24 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0233-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt: clean water is a vital part of everyday life and should be a Right, not an option. If local or State governments fail to protect us Federal agencies need to step in.

Commenter Name: Amanda E. Aspatore Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0249-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

NMA supports several of EPA’s proposals regarding NPDES documentation and process efficiencies, which would lead to better documentation of state permitting determinations and provide much-needed clarity to permit holders.

Commenter Name: Mark Meeks Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0262-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

While your proposal is a much-needed step in the right direction, we all know that water challenges will only grow, so that we must be more committed than ever to protect clean, plentiful, and accessible water for us all. We cannot in any way take for granted water as a challenged resource. Sadly, the record of human history includes civilizations that spent their resources and found themselves in an environment that could no longer sustain them. That is real history and will remain a real challenge to us. Please give us the strong leadership we must have to ensure water is sustained for us all.

Commenter Name: Sharon DeCelle Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0264-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-25 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

The EPA was created to protect our land, air and water. We citizens absolutely rely on the EPA to do it's job.

Commenter Name: Lee Bartell Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0268-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

No water, no life. We're drinking the same water that the dinosaurs drank. So we need to do everything that we can, to preserve our clean water. We have to hold officials accountable, when they've ignored the rules. Those areas must be of the highest priority.

Commenter Name: Thomas Nowak Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0269-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We are faced in Ohio with toxic algae problems, in part due to fertilizer runoffs, but probably other polluting actors as well. Without proper water permit enforcement, we are vulnerable to consuming polluted water which harms people as well as pets. Please enforce uniformly and firmly.

Commenter Name: Julie Cooke Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0270-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It's important to me that the water in my area be safe for drinking and recreation and as a habitat for other species.

1-26 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Judith E. Vido Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0271-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I agree with the points made in the statement below and urge you to make water safe for all, including the wildlife of our planet. As it stands, water is not at all safe and will become more toxic if we don't close some loopholes. We need to also protect our fresh waters as they are already in short supply.

Commenter Name: Linda Jung Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0273-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I am over 60. When I was a schoolchild I was a proud that our nation had good clean drinking water. I felt bad for those countries that risked their citizens health with their polluted drinking their water. Now WE are among the countries that clean, safe water is not automatic. We can do better than this! We need the support of the EPA

Commenter Name: Reynaldo Hernandez Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0275-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Just last night on Network TV there was another national story about pollutted water, this time in Portland, OR. And there are probably others that are not making the news. This is happening way too often. Water permit enforcement is just one step we can take toward safe water for all all the time.

Commenter Name: Jarry Owen Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0276-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-27 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

Let's keep our water clean, clean water is precious to our lives. Everything and every living person needs to have clean water at their disposal, and a never ending supply.

Our earth is mostly covered by water, all we have to do is build desalination plants. Let the governments put the tax money towards building many them instead of giving our tax money to nations who hate us and want to kill us.

Commenter Name: Alina Patterson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0278-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

As an environmental scientist who worked with water quality, EPA clean up projects, and more, we all know that enforcement and prevention costs significantly less than mitigation and clean up. We can't afford to let this go on as a country - literally. It's time to put the teeth back into protecting our environment. Why should the public pay for the crimes on the environment by the unconscionable private sector?

Commenter Name: Susan Kepner Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0280-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

America's water resources MUST be protected! With the severe drought conditions in so many parts of the United States, EVERY water supply MUST be safe and protected from pollution and over -drawing from aquifers.

Commenter Name: Christopher Hall Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0281-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-28 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Utah has active coal mines and not much water. Please act to make sure the state of Utah appropriately protects is scarce, precious water.

Commenter Name: Jonathan Dudley Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0289-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

For about 5 years, part of my job was opening the NPDES notices from the State of Tenn and looking for coal related permits. While the permitting process did help me inform regular people who lived around coal projects what might be happening to their community, all in all, we -me and folks I ended up working side by side ended up almost always feeling like the process ended up being a rubber stamp approval from our state agency -not because they didn't care about water quality, but because of the limitations of NPDES. Then years or even months later the agency would act to "enforce" the permits, but always after damage had occurred.

I am very encouraged to hear that EPA is updating NPDES. I know that an updated and strengthened NPDES system could be an effective tool for informing communities and protecting both communities and the environment from water pollution. I support the changes that EPA is making to better protect our water from coal mining related pollution!

Commenter Name: Steve Spacek Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0290-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you EPA, for providing much needed oversight and clarification of NPDES permitting. NPDES permits are the main way of limiting damage done to public waterways by surface coal mining, power plants and toxic debris dumping by private citizens and non-public corporations.

Commenter Name: Steve Spacek Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0290-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

1-29 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

I support EPA’s more increased, stringent oversight of NPDES permit renewal.

Commenter Name: Debbie Balasko Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0292-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Clean water is more precious than any amount of gold. We need water to survive, every form of life must have clean water to survive. This is a life and death issue NOT POLITICAL. NO MORE POLLUTING OF OUR WATER NOT NOW NOT EVER.

Commenter Name: Lisa Glassco Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0293-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I support the updates to the Clean Water Act. Dominion Power recently released coal ash wastewater into the James River not far from where I live. This sort of thing should be stopped; we can live without electricity but not without water.

Commenter Name: Carol Nau Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0297-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

These proposed changes are exactly what is need to help save our water.

Commenter Name: James Hubbard Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0299-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-30 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

Having grown up in central Appalachia I understand the effects of the coal industry and the pollution that comes as a result. Wise County Virginia is home to the beautiful and ecologically diverse Clinch River. I hope that you take this letter seriously and do all that you can to protect the land I love. I am appreciative of the changes that have come about in my home due to the Clean Water Act and I look forward to more improvements with the continued efforts of the Clean Power Plan. Please continue to be diligent and ensure these industries do not overstep their bounds and cause the citizens of Appalachia to pay for their negligence.

Commenter Name: Jim Steitz Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0300-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

EPA must radically increase oversight and, as necessary, reclaim its CWA enforcement role where states have proven unable or unwilling to protect our precious aquatic ecosystems and their biologically rich watersheds. So long as the fortunes of extractive industry, primarily coal companies, and their political captives in state government demand the negation of the Clean Water Act, EPA must respond with vigorous, amplified enforcement.***

Commenter Name: William Sasso Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0301-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I strongly support the proposed changes to the NPDES permit process. These are badly needed, and they are overdue -- Appalachia has suffered decades of degraded water quality due to the coal mining industry.

Commenter Name: A.J. Averett Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0302-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-31 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The proposed changes provide several key ways to better protect Central Appalachia from the effects of coal extraction and combustion.

Commenter Name: Margaret Datz Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0313-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I urge you to strengthen EPA's oversight of water pollution permits. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) absolutely must be updated every five years, as required by the Clean Water Act. All living things need clean water, and polluters should be required to control their water pollution to ensure public health and safety

Commenter Name: S. and M. Hampton Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0321-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We look forward to learning of your utmost help in preventing and limiting water pollution. Our water supply is not limitless. We must all work together to keep our water as pure as possible.

Commenter Name: S. and M. Hampton Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0321-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

We pray that you will do everything within your power to protect our precious water. Bless you for doing so, always. S and M Hampton, Florida

Commenter Name: Robin Baer Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-32 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0324-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Nothing, not energy, precious metals or any other resource is as important to humans, animals and plants-all living things, as water. We should not be pulling back on safety of our water resources, or any other environmental issue, while so many issues are far from resolved and powerful polluters are ever pressing for their right to pollute.

Commenter Name: Carol Leonard Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0326-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Our EPA needs to live up to its name and steped in to protect public health where states have failed to do what they needed to do.

Commenter Name: Nancy Gehlhausen Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0327-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Clean water is a right for every American, but big polluters seem to ignore that right. At one point in time I had four active strip mines operating within a five mile radius of our home. We dealt with all kinds of pollution from those mines and although it has improved, more needs to be done to regulate and oversee industries that continue to pollute.

Commenter Name: Joanne Corey Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0328-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-33 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

As someone who lives near a state border, I especially appreciate the federal government stepping in to ensure that a neighboring state is being as careful as my own state in protecting our waters.

Commenter Name: Joanne Corey Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0328-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

These days, there are many alarming stories of water pollution and drinking water contamination. We need to correct these issues as quickly as possible.

Commenter Name: Anne Lusby-Denham Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0330-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Water is our most important resource. It is time for that to be acknowledged and action to be taken very proactively by the EPA to protect. We do not want to become aware of this once it is too late!

Commenter Name: Peggy Ricci Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0339-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Our water should be clean with no slime, pollutants, or other things in it. We want our clear clean water back. Make these companies clean up their messes with the profits they get instead of charging the people higher prices.

Commenter Name: Steve Marvin Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-34 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0340-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

MOST SANE, RESPONSIBLE, AND CONCERNED CITIZENS HAVE LONG URGED THE EPA TO GREATLY REFORM and STRENGTHEN NPDES permits. With as many as 25% of major source water permits NOT BEING UPDATED in a RESPONSIBLE, TIMELY MANNER, it's LONG PAST TIME that the EPA STOOD UP TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH WHERE STATES HAVE LONG FAILED TO OVERSEE AND PROTECT THIS FUNCTION... AS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO! The EPA has to become more proactive and forthright about protecting the public from the ravaging scourges of IRRESPONSIBLE, SELF-SERVING, DISREPUTABLE CORPORATE PROFITEERING CRIMINALS!

Commenter Name: Peter van Dorsten Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0341-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

A well functioning market needs consistently enforced rules so that all companies are on a level playing field and innovation can be properly incented because the true costs are visible. EPA, in this sense, has a critical role in facilitating an orderly market that supports the public good.

Commenter Name: Nancy Bush Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0342-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Like ALL of you, I drink water. For the health and safety of ALL of us, I NEED this fluid to protected like the precious resource it is. Perhaps some of you have children - I'm pretty doggone sure you want to leave them a clean world.

Commenter Name: David Svetich Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0344-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-35 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

I've always been of the opinion that the water leaving your property should be as clean as the water entering your property.

Commenter Name: Charlotte Fremaux Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0345-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Clean water is essential for future life on this planet. Without strong controls to prevent polluters from despoiling our streams and rivers and killing valuable aquatic life, they will continue to act with impunity. It is outrageous that polluters can profit from degrading water quality and our environment. Please make sure they are forced to cease their reckless disregard for our environment and health.

Commenter Name: Annie Grewe Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0346-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I strongly approve your intention to strengthen the EPA's oversight of state permits to make sure the waters of our lakes, rivers, and streams are protected. Both enforcement and regular updating of criteria and permits are needed.

We rely on you, Environmental Protection Agency, to enforce the Clean Water Act and strongly regulate polluters, but also rein in state environmental agencies that have become too accommodating to those they should be regulating.

Commenter Name: Malgorzata Schmidt Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0347-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-36 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you for doing your job. It's becoming global, you know... It's important to all of us on EARTH that the water is safe for drinking and recreation.

Commenter Name: Maria Celia Hernandez Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0352-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Water is a necessity and everyone has the right and should have the right that the Government and permits be alert and working on them .So people can keep their health well or better and the important uses with and for clean water do not decrease in service. As you may know, Polluters will fight you and the people back to keep lax enforcement of their permits, these corps should know that the same water we get they also do too. That protecting the sources All uses it is important and it must be protected, Test and renew permits when they need too. Please do put a priority for the important source that keeps every living thing, alive and surviving. Thank you for your consideration that there are communities in need of this treasure natural source and the cleanup of pipes and rivers. New pipes need in the oldest pipes not been changed for decades.. The health of everyone depends on the cleanness and secure approval of water services.to every community. Thank you for your reconsideration to make those coal-fired power plant, refinery, or other major pollution source to have permits limiting their water pollution. For the sake of every one's health and protecting all from diseases.

Commenter Name: Eulia Quan Mishima Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0354-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LET FOR PROFIT OR CARELESS BUSINESSES CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES THAT POISON WATERS AND ALL THE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT HAVE UNTIL WITHIN THE PAST 100 YEARS CAUSE LIFE THREATENING CONTAMINATION AND ALTERATION OF THE EARTH'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PATTERN OF SUPPORTING ALL NATURAL LIFE SINCE MORE THAN A MILLION YEARS AGO.

1-37 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Carolyn Barthel Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0357-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We must enforce the Clean Water Act. Big polluters are playing high, wide and handsome with our water safety, with heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury being dumped in our water. That must stop.

Commenter Name: Carolyn Seibold Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0360-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Please support the nation's need for clean water by making potential polluters follow the law.

Commenter Name: Stacey Nozaki Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0361-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

There will never be a substitute for clean water and air. Shortsightedness and greed have prevented us from achieving a goal that should have been possible by the 1980s. I truly hope that, in my lifetime, I'll see a country and if possible, a world where clean energy enables my children and grandchildren to live with these very basic human rights.

Commenter Name: Charlie La Rosa Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0364-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-38 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

We can do this. When I was a child, the Connecticut River in my hometown ran streaked with various colors and sheens due to industrial wastes and domestic sewage being dumped directly into the river. Now that has all stopped. The river is a big draw for kayakers, canoeists, water skiers, fisherpeople, and rowers. It is even swimmable now and has been declared such by the federal government. We CAN protect our waters and our people if we have the will to do it. The people you serve have that will and you have the power to back them up and to see that permits are properly issued, adhered to, and reviewed on schedule.

If you have been hamstrung by budget cuts, someone has to speak up, to blow the whistle, and make sure that the people know what is going on. We need to support one another to see that our waters and people are protected and that you have the resources to properly do your job.

Commenter Name: Jim Steitz Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0365-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

***EPA must assert much stronger oversight of Clean Water Act enforcement that has been delegated to the states. Too many state environmental agencies have become wholly captured subsidiaries of interests wishing to destroy our aquatic ecosystems. This is particularly acute in the Appalachian Mountain states, whose environmental agencies serve to blunt and nullify Clean Water Act infringement upon coal company prerogatives to blast apart entire mountains and bury entire streams. The task of preventing these egregious CWA violations has fallen to citizen organizations on shoestring budgets who must wage legal combat against both industry and the state. EPA must stop this abdication of ecological responsibility and reclaim its enforcement role wherever this occurs.***

Commenter Name: Dede Tudor Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0366-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

How is this not a priority! In looking to the future, how much more of this polluting of our life's blood, WATER, can this country take. Your job is to enforce these permits, since the polluters are devils without a conscience. I do not see how the ball has been dropped in so many instances such as Flint. We have no more time to wait for you to see to it that we have clean water. We support you and your efforts in every way, through petitions to the Senate and the House to keep

1-39 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments your funding. But we need you to do your job and fight back against the polluters and hold them accountable. We will be there for you. You must be there for us NOW.

Commenter Name: Sharon Lloyd Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0367-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I find it appalling that we have to submit comments to a federal agency that the tax payers finance to do their job and amazing that we have to beg for our waters to be kept safe for us.

Commenter Name: Bruce Cox Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0373-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Here in NC, we are fighting those in government who should take the lead in protecting water for its citizens, but do not. Instead, laws are passed or proposed to give a free pass to polluters like Duke Energy. Your future action that enables at risk citizens to feel safe when drinking/using their water is so important.

Commenter Name: Petra C H Gampper Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0375-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

With as many as 25% of major source water permits not being updated in a timely manner, it is now way past time that EPA step in the strictest manner possible to protect public health where states have failed ~ ...miserably so...~ to do what they (respective states) needed to do without being cajoled to do so under legally binding pressure.. Whichever polluter(s) fails (fail) to update its (their) permit(s) in a strict, timely manner ~ ...any such polluter(s) forfeits/forfeit its (their) access to our precious source water resources permit. The apparent, astoundingly lax legal enforcement needs to and must be stepped up fiercely and immediately, now. Nothing less appears to get any/all polluter(s) attention to move responsibly in the right direction. Again, strict

1-40 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments enforcement must be finally put in place and adhered to.with equally highest measure. We mean it and demand strictest, above mentioned oversight over any water-rights abusing corporate polluter(s), and without any further delay. It is of utmost importance to my family and me that the water in our entire Bay Area be safe for drinking and recreation.

Commenter Name: Susan Weldon Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0376-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It's important to me that the water in my area be safe for drinking and recreation. But beyond that it is important to the United States that its citizens be healthy and trust the government.

They also shouldn't have to fight for clean water. It should be guaranteed without question that the government has the health and safety of its citizens as their first priority.

Commenter Name: Charlie Cornwell Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0378-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I live in a state where coal companies have left the land and streams in such bad shape that they could not be used until a big time clean up took place. We have had chemical spills from companies that sell to coal producing operations. Power plants that have coal ash piles that pollute streams and land .This is why , every permit should be enforced !

Commenter Name: George and Frances Alderson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0384-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-41 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Please proceed with these strengthening amendments to the clean water regulations as soon as possible. Thank you for considering our comments.

Commenter Name: Patricia Kunkel Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0386-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you for strengthening how you will oversee NPDES permits. If we are to be among great contries shouldn't wr have clean air and water? Of course!!

Commenter Name: Julie Robichaud Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0387-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

If you choose to not do this, I ask that you explain to the American people, in plain English, the true reasons for that inaction and how it is expected to help improve the health and safety of the ordinary people of the United States in the long run. Thank you.

Commenter Name: Michael Tenenbaum Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0391-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

As a former surface water quality consultant I have experienced first hand to value of having NPDES permits vs having nothing or no enforcement capabilities for water protection. Stay at it, and stay at it e will always be those who are ignorant of our resources and the true value they have for all life. Don't buckle under pressure.

Commenter Name: Katie Hammer Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-42 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0392-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

A main goal of the Clean Water Act was swimmable and fishable waters throughout the nation by 1985, but we are still a long ways from achieving that goal. Ensuring that NPDES permits are written, enforced and updated will go a long ways to achieving that promise, and I urge you to move forward quickly with your proposed NPDES revisions, and then ensure enforcement once implemented.

Commenter Name: Russell Bassett Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0393-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

A main goal of the Clean Water Act was swimmable and fishable waters throughout the nation by 1985, but we are still a long ways from achieving that goal. Ensuring that NPDES permits are written, enforced and updated will go a long ways to achieving that promise, and I urge you to move forward quickly with your proposed NPDES revisions, and then ensure enforcement once implemented.

Commenter Name: Maryanne Rackoff Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0398-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Consider North Carolina! We really need help!

Commenter Name: Mary Jones Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0400-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-43 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

As we learn more about the damage that has already been done by industry it becomes more clear that these giant corporations have no conscience about destroying what does not belong to them. People with any character would self regulate, but as these individuals continue to show contempt for their fellow citizens and the world we live in, we must regulate for them. Please support the states in their duty to make sure our water and air does not become more polluted than is already is.

Commenter Name: Lance Biesele Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0401-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Action to sustain water quality is necessarily on-going. In my small area of upstate NY there have been repeated instances of industrial pollution fouling both recreational and drinking water supplies. Do not be persuaded that pollution is necessary for economic stability - the cost to the public far exceeds any benefits to the stockholders/owners/workers in any industry.

Commenter Name: Phil Seymour Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0402-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is historically noted that unregulated corporations, industries, and reckless entrepreneurs tend to pollute our groundwater, streams, rivers, lakes and other water as if it is their personal moneymaker. They don't care if they also use our waterways as a place to discharge sewage, toxic waste and other pollutants. Without strong regulations they are untrustworthy and thoughtless.

One of the ways we can help these miscreants learn good good stewardship and social responsibility, is through the permit process.

Expired permits are an indication that a business doesn't care to follow the rules of good behavior and conservation of our resources. Those scofflaws should not be allowed to pump, discharge, or use our resources without a permit.

1-44 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Laura Peck Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0406-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Clean water is obviously a resource that is fast becoming less available. As we continue to pollute great amounts, and climate change is accompanied by more frequent drought conditions, we will eventually find this will be a critical issue. I hope you will do all you can to protect our available clean water as a basic component of life itself.

Commenter Name: Adam Link Commenter Affiliation: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0416-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

CASA supports EPA’s goal to align the NPDES regulations with the Clean Water Act (CWA) statute; eliminate regulatory and application form inconsistencies; improve permit documentation, transparency, and oversight; clarify existing regulations; and remove outdated provisions. Specifically, CASA supports proposed revisions allowing for public notice of NPDES permits to be posted on the permitting authority’s public website, as well as changes to improve the level of detail and information included in fact sheets to facilitate more transparent and effective documentation of permitting decisions and determinations concerning NPDES permits.

Commenter Name: Janet A. Gillaspie Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (Oregon ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0426-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

General Comments

ACWA agrees with the purpose of EPA’s proposed rulemaking to delete certain regulatory provisions that are no longer in effect, clarify the level of documentation that permit writers must provide, use more consistent data for permitting decisions, and modernize opportunities for public notice. However, ACWA does have specific concerns on parts of EPA’s overall rulemaking proposal:

1-45 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

A few of EPA’s proposed regulatory changes represent positive improvements to the NPDES permitting program.

Commenter Name: Michael Churchman Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Environmental Council, et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0431-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

The undersigned organizations appreciate the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates. Our organizations support EPA’s efforts to improve consistency and transparency in the NPDES application process and to increase EPA oversight of state permitting authorities. These updates are needed to modernize the NPDES program and to address the significant backlog of 17,000 expired permits.1

Strong and consistent NPDES regulations are essential to meeting the original intent of the Clean Water Act to ultimately eliminate water pollution in order to “restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”2 Discharge permits are required to be updated every five years, but at least 25% of all major NPDES permits are expired.3 Regular renewal of permits is necessary to ensure that new effluent limits, water quality standards and changes in receiving water conditions are considered in order to update permit terms and conditions in a timely manner.

1 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,356.

2 33 U.S.C. Section1251(a).

3 Permit Status Report for Non-Tribal Individual Major Permits – U.S. EPA (April 2016). Available at:

1-46 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/mid-year_fy2016_non- tribal_baclog_majors-

_report_card.pdf.

Commenter Name: Mei Mei Sanford Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0432-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

California needs you. And I as a produce buyer need you. I am trying to buy no fruit, nuts and vegetables laced with toxic chemicals. Your oversight will protect California farmers and everyone across the country who buys from them. Your oversight will lessen the drought, give Californians water resources, reduce fires, and keep corporations--like Nestle--from exploiting California water on expired permits, without paying and without respecting local needs.

Commenter Name: Michael Petelle Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0433-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I will be perfectly honest here: by updating permits, coal plants will need to spend money to provide better pollution control. This is only fair in that these additional costs help to internalize costs that they have for far too long been externalizing. That, in turn, will help make sustainable energy sources more cost competitive with coal.

Commenter Name: Pat Hackbarth Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0434-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I want to urge you to take vitals steps to ensure that major polluters' water pollution permits are updated in a timely manner, and are properly enforced.

1-47 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The track record on this has been terrifically inadequate, resulting in substantial quantities of toxic materials routinely being dumped in our rivers, lakes, and ultimately our drinking water.

There can be no question that this is unacceptable. Your regulations were put in place to prevent a critical danger to public health, yet they are frequently ignored with impunity.

I urge you to get the train back on the tracks and enforce these regulations. Thank you.

Commenter Name: John Novinson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0435-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I managed a local water utility and was amazed at how many of our peers simply chose to ignore their obligations under the law and the terms of their permits. Please act aggressively to level the playing field and protect the public from these increasing threats and irresponsible permittees.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

In general, ACWA supports the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) periodically updating and modernizing the federal NPDES regulations to eliminate application form inconsistencies, improve transparency, and remove outdated provisions. States also support EPA's efforts to provide NPDES permit writers with improved tools and to provide the public with opportunities for public participation in permitting actions. States acknowledge that some of the proposed provisions will accomplish the above goals.

Summary

In the proposed NPDES Updates Rule, EPA has proposed a number of important and helpful provisions that will update the national NPDES regulations to reflect current implementation practices

1-48 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Jeffrey L. West Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0457-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Xcel Energy appreciates and supports EPA's efforts to update these regulations by deleting obsolete provisions, ensuring consistency with the amendments to the Clean Water Act, and including requirements from judicial decisions. While many of the suggested changes support EPA's aim to clarify compliance requirements and to provide improved transparency to permitting authorities we have noted portions of the proposal that merit comment.

Commenter Name: Pat Ament Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0460-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We demand a clean environment and clean energy NOW!!!

Commenter Name: Jan Charvat Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0462-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Water and air are essential to survival and health.

Commenter Name: Lori Olinger Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0018-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-49 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

As a concerned citizen from Minnesota, I’m writing to express my strong support for the EPA proposal to update National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rules. I believe the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is not fulfilling its responsibility to enforce the CWA and these changes will help the EPA ensure compliance in Minnesota.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the comments and concerns expressed in opposition to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates rulemaking, proposed on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31343). The EPA disagrees with the requests to withdraw the proposed rule or not to proceed with finalizing the proposed revisions. As explained in the Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda and the preamble to the final rule, the EPA is taking action on the proposed revisions in two separate but related final actions. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable.

The EPA is not finalizing the proposed changes to 40 CFR 122.3(a) due to the very recent enactment of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which exempts discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel from NPDES permitting requirements consistent with the existing regulatory language at 40 CFR 122.3(a).

In addition, the EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

1-50 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

Regarding the comment questioning the purpose of this rulemaking, the EPA provided the rationale in the proposed rule (81 FR 31343). The revisions in the proposed rulemaking eliminate regulatory and application form inconsistencies; improve permit documentation, transparency and oversight; clarify existing regulations; and remove outdated provisions at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125. Regarding the purpose of this first final rule, which addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016, it modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment.

Regarding the comments questioning the potential burden associated with revisions in this rulemaking, see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 7 – Overall Burden as well as the preamble to the final rule.

Regarding the comment excerpt in this General – Against Rulemaking category that mentions generally that their comment letter provided recommendations related to the proposed rule, this specific comment excerpt does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in EPA's proposed rule for this rulemaking. Therefore, this specific excerpt is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment on this rulemaking and does not require a response. However, the commenter should consult the Table of Contents to identify the response essays that respond to the significant comment excerpts from their comment letter.

B. Comments Questioning the EPA’s Authority for This Rulemaking

Some comment excerpts in this General – Against Rulemaking category suggest that the EPA is overreaching its authority through this rulemaking or that the proposed provisions are legally and technically problematic. The EPA disagrees. The Clean Water Act (CWA)—initially enacted by Congress as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92‒500) and subsequent amendments—establishes the basis for the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulation and program (CWA Section 402), including providing

1-51 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments the EPA the authority to regulate discharges into the nation's waters by setting limits on the effluent that can be introduced into a body of water from an operating and permitted facility. CWA Section 501(a) also authorizes the EPA Administrator to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out functions under the CWA. Hence, the EPA relies on CWA Sections 402 and 501 as authority for promulgating this final rule. See the preamble to the final rule, the preamble to the proposed rule, and the remainder of these responses to comments for more discussion regarding why the final rule revisions are reasonably necessary.

C. Comments Questioning the EPA’s Rulemaking Process and Stakeholder Engagement

Some commenters suggested the EPA abandon this rulemaking because stakeholders were not contacted while the EPA was considering the rulemaking and prior to publication of the proposed rule. The EPA disagrees. The EPA acknowledges that for some contemplated rulemakings, federal agencies may utilize an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to seek early input before a contemplated rulemaking is proposed. While an ANPRM can be useful when the agency knows there is a problem but does not have sufficient information to propose an appropriate solution, an ANPRM is not a required step in the federal rulemaking process. In the case of this rulemaking to update the NPDES regulations, an ANPRM was not utilized because the Agency had sufficient information to provide proposed regulatory text as well as an explanation of the issues involved in the rulemaking and the basis and purpose of the proposed rule. This rulemaking was conducted in accordance with the CWA, in particular Section 501(a), and the rulemaking requirements outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 553).

It should also be noted that in developing the proposed rule, the EPA discussed the purpose of the rule with the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) in 2011 and held three dedicated conference calls with state NPDES permitting authorities through ACWA in 2015. The EPA also consulted with the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the National Tribal Water Council, environmental groups, and NPDES permittees during development of the proposed rule.

Further, the EPA has provided multiple opportunities for public participation throughout this rulemaking process. From May 18, 2016 to August 2, 2016, the EPA provided a 75-day public comment period to receive input on the contents of the proposed rule. The proposed rule and notification of the public comment period (including a 15-day extension) were published in the Federal Register (FR). See 81 FR 31343, May 18, 2016 and 81 FR 41507, June 27, 2016. More than 14,000 public comments were received during the public comment period from a wide variety of organizations, individuals, and mass letter writing campaigns on a range of issues in the proposed rule. The EPA considered all input received during the public comment period and used it to inform its final action on the relevant sections of this first final rule. Responses to the substance of the public comments related to revisions finalized in this first final rule are included throughout this response to comments document.

Additionally, based on state feedback and requests for continued involvement in the rulemaking process, the EPA provided multiple updates for states through ACWA meetings and conference calls. In addition, the EPA met with all stakeholders who requested time to discuss the contents

1-52 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments of the proposed rule. Such discussions occurred with members of industry/utility groups and the environmental community. Records of each meeting are included in the public docket for this action.

As stated in Subsection A of this response essay, the EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

D. Comments Suggesting That This Rulemaking is Inconsistent with the Clean Water Act’s Cooperative Federalism Framework

Regarding the comments suggesting that this rulemaking is inconsistent with state and federal roles established in the CWA’s cooperative federalism framework, the comments received do not provide rationale or explanation regarding how the commenters believe this rulemaking enlarges the EPA’s role, or diminishes states’ roles, as compared to the CWA’s existing cooperative federalism framework, which creates a partnership between states, U.S. territories, tribes, and the EPA. Without such information, the EPA is unable to assess or address commenters’ concerns.

E. Comments About This Rulemaking’s Effect on State Programs

Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would overburden and limit states’ discretion, likely have unintended adverse consequences for states and permittees, undermine historical flexibilities, create new challenges, or be difficult or impossible for states to implement. The EPA considered all input received during the public comment period and used any specific information regarding burdens or effects on states to inform the relevant sections of this first final rule. See the final rule requirements, the discussion of requirements and associated flexibilities in the preamble to this first final rule, as well as responses to comments on specific sections throughout the record for this rulemaking. The EPA will also work with states to implement the changes brought forth by this rule. And as stated in Subsection A of this response essay, the EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections (which may have prompted the general concerns expressed in some of the comments arguing generally that the rulemaking would have undesirable effects on state programs). Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to those eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

F. Other

Regarding the comment referencing other EPA rulemakings, because the comment does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates proposed rulemaking (81 FR 31343, May 18, 2016), it is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment on this rulemaking, and therefore, does not require a response.

1-53 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the comment describing an existing state program, because the comment does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates proposed rulemaking (81 FR 31343, May 18, 2016), it is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment on this rulemaking, and therefore, does not require a response.

1-54 1.a - General – Support for Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

Commenter Name: John A. Coates Commenter Affiliation: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0111-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

However, we believe that certain of the proposed provisions are inconsistent with the Clean Water Act’s long-standing framework of state and federal cooperation, and would be very likely to have unintended adverse consequences for States, Permittees, and for EPA.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

As an initial matter, Southern Company strongly believes that EPA should abandon this rulemaking and seek stakeholder input before promulgating a replacement rule. Stakeholders should be given the opportunity to meet with EPA regarding meaningful changes and updates to the NPDES permitting program. As explained in more detail in UWAG’s comments on the Proposed Rule, EPA generally conducted this rulemaking in the dark. Given the long history that industry and the states have had with the implementation of the NPDES regulatory program, an expanded stakeholder process would greatly benefit everyone.

Unfortunately, in its haste, EPA failed to contact industry stakeholders or otherwise take any action to provide the public with notice regarding its consideration of the Proposed Rule. Southern Company is among the companies that were surprised by the approach EPA took to update its NPDES regulations. Many of the concerns raised in these comments could have been avoided if EPA would have reached out to industry, states, and stakeholders in general.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

1-55 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Southern Company, however, finds several other aspects of the Proposed Rule problematic and without legal support. Many provisions in EPA’s Proposed Rule undercut a number of state water quality regulations that EPA previously reviewed and approved. As a result, EPA’s Proposed Rule will limit the flexibility states have to address their unique water quality issues. EPA also displays a complete lack of deference to the states, the understanding they have of their water quality and water quantity issues, the policies they have established, and the solutions they have developed over time.

Furthermore, EPA’s proposal is an unlawful attempt to restructure the relationship that the Agency has with the states. If finalized as proposed, EPA’s role is enlarged, while the states’ role, which is supposed to be primary, is diminished. Moreover, EPA’s view that its Proposed Rule will not impose additional burdens on states and permittees is disingenuous at best, and certainly not substantiated.

Commenter Name: Cory Pomeroy Commenter Affiliation: Texas Oil and Gas Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0188-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

After review and analysis of this proposed rule, we find it to be legally and technically problematic. Through these comments, TXOGA aims to assist EPA in accomplishing its regulatory goals and to help EPA better understand the effects that the proposed rules will have on Industry and the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("TPDES") program.

TXOGA members have a strong interest in protecting the water quality in the State of Texas for all users of the water. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") has implemented a rigorous state-delegated TPDES program that has been effective in issuing discharge permits that have been protective of Texas waters. TXOGA members are concerned that this proposed rule usurps TCEQ’s authority, limits its discretion and that the proposal will result in a program that is both less effective and less efficient. A summary of concerns are contained below:

The concerns outlined above are described in more detail in comments submitted separately by the American Petroleum Institute ("API"), the Texas Industry Project ("TIP"), The Cross-Cutting Issues Group ("CCIG"), a project of the Class of ’85 Regulatory Response Group, and the Portland Cement Association. TXOGA strongly supports the comments included in those documents and encourages the EPA to consider carefully the comments and suggestions included in each. TXOGA also supports the comments and concerns submitted separately by the State of Texas and in particular the implications the proposal has for the TPDES program.

1-56 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The proposed rule will not lead to better water quality or more effective permitting programs. It will, however, impact the effectiveness of the TPDES program and will result in reordered priorities and unnecessary administrative work. In doing so, the proposed rule both violates federal law and disrupts the effective delegated permitting program envisioned by the Clean Water Act.

Commenter Name: Marty Haroldson Commenter Affiliation: North Dakota Department of Health Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0236-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

The Department is extremely concerned with all of the new rules that have been finalized by EPA in the last two years. This proposed rule is looking to accompany the 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Rule, the Steam Electric Rule, the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, pesticide permitting, the sufficiently sensitive methods rule, enhanced public notifications for Combined Sewer Overflows, the coal ash rule, the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Rule, and the soon to be proposed Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Remand Rule. As the case with so many regulatory agencies, budget cuts and personnel turnover hinders the implementation of all these rules. The Department asks that EPA work very close with the states before implementing this NPDES Rule Update change to ensure a smooth implementation process. We propose EPA hold back the issuance of the NPDES Rule and form a work group that invites states to help determine what a national baseline NPDES Rule update should look like.

Commenter Name: Roy McAuley Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Pulp & Paper Council (APPCO) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0239-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1. The whole of the proposed regulation represents EPA’s attempt to take control of functions that are clearly assigned to the states.

a. The need for more EPA control is undemonstrated and unnecessary.

b. EPA’s efficiency in operating the permits it is responsible for is much lower than the states.

c. EPA clearly does not have Clean Water Act authority in some of the areas where it has proposed changes.

1-57 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2. In making efforts to update and improve the NPDES, EPA had said that it would seek stakeholder input. This never happened. If EPA had done so, many of the pitfalls in the current proposal could have been avoided.

In summary, EPA should withdraw the proposal, get some stakeholder input, and propose changes that are legally justifiable, helpful to the states who administer the water programs, and thus improve the environment.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

Unfortunately, many others are either unproductive and confusing or, in some cases, exceed EPA’s authority. Indeed, a number of EPA’s proposed changes appear to represent the codification of regulatory reminders, which at best are unnecessary under the circumstances and as a practical matter are more likely to create confusion.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

However, ACWA also believes several of the provisions articulated in this proposal would undermine historical flexibilities and create new challenges for states, including increasing state administrative burden. Likewise, ACWA is disappointed EPA did not take full advantage of the numerous opportunities ACWA provided to have in-depth conversations about a number of the provisions in this proposed rule. We believe the proposed rule likely could have been improved by a very deliberate, comprehensive, and collaborative discussion process.

Summary

However, EPA also has proposed several controversial provisions that states cannot support. Many states are concerned that some provisions in the proposed rule could be very difficult and

1-58 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments costly to implement, could detrimentally impact the proposed benefits, and in some cases, redirect resources away from water quality improvements and towards administrative activities. ACWA has provided you with several recommendations that we think will improve the overall efficacy and implementation of the proposed rule and stand ready to work with you to incorporate those recommendations.

Commenter Name: Paulina Williams Commenter Affiliation: Texas Industry Project (TIP) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0445-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) runs a rigorous, protective, and substantial state-delegated program. It is evident to the TIP members that TCEQ works hard to prioritize and balance the needs of its TPDES program and the issuance of sound and protective TPDES permits. Particularly as EPA continues to issue new or revised regulations under the Clean Water Act or affecting Clean Water Act programs, TCEQ has engage in meaningful stakeholder outreach and otherwise worked toward creating broader understanding in the regulated community of the issues around implementation and the implications for permitting. TIP values the expertise and clarity that TCEQ seeks to provide.

By the overreaching and overly prescriptive nature of the Proposed Rules, EPA does not meaningful advance any true environmental gains and instead overburdens the very agency that has the responsibility to issue the permits while undermining the ability of the regulated community to rely on that agency’s delegated program. TIP recognizes EPA has a role to play, but the further EPA unnecessarily encroaches on the states’ discretion, the more it unnecessarily erodes the integrity of the delegated-program framework under the CWA.

Commenter Name: Robert C. Steidel Commenter Affiliation: Department of Public Utilities, City of Richmond Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0017-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

General Comment

It is not clear why EPA initiated this proposed rulemaking. Most of the issues described in the preamble include a statement indicating there is no burden associated with the action and the action is simply for clarification. If this is truly the case, why do a rulemaking?

1-59 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the comments and concerns expressed in opposition to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates rulemaking, proposed on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31343). The EPA disagrees with the requests to withdraw the proposed rule or not to proceed with finalizing the proposed revisions. As explained in the Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda and the preamble to the final rule, the EPA is taking action on the proposed revisions in two separate but related final actions. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application); permit applications; and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA contact information and web addresses for electronic databases, updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents, and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable.

The EPA is not finalizing the proposed changes to 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) due to the recent enactment of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which exempts discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel from NPDES permitting requirements consistent with the existing regulatory language at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a).

In addition, the EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

1-60 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

With regard to the comment questioning the purpose of this rulemaking, the EPA provided the rationale in the proposed rule (81 FR 31343). The revisions in the proposed rulemaking eliminate regulatory and application form inconsistencies; improve permit documentation, transparency and oversight; clarify existing regulations; and remove outdated provisions at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125. With regard to the purpose of this first final rule which addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016, it modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment.

With regard to the comments questioning the potential burden associated with revisions in this rulemaking, see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 7 – Overall Burden, as well as the preamble to the final rule.

With regard to the comment excerpt in this General – Against Rulemaking category that mentions generally that their comment letter provided recommendations related to the proposed rule, this specific comment excerpt does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in EPA's proposed rule for this rulemaking. Therefore, this specific excerpt is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment on this rulemaking and does not require a response. However, the commenter should consult the table of contents to identify the response essays that respond to the significant comment excerpts from their comment letter.

B. Comments Questioning the EPA’s Authority for This Rulemaking

Some comment excerpts in this General – Against Rulemaking category suggest that the EPA is overreaching its authority through this rulemaking or that the proposed provisions are legally and technically problematic. The EPA disagrees. The Clean Water Act (CWA)—initially enacted by Congress as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92‒500) and subsequent amendments—establishes the basis for the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulation and program (CWA section 402), including providing the EPA the authority to regulate discharges into the nation's waters by setting limits on the effluent that can be introduced into a body of water from an operating and permitted facility. CWA section 501(a) also authorizes the EPA Administrator to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out functions under the CWA. Hence, the EPA relies on CWA sections 402 and 501 as authority for promulgating this final rule. See the preamble to the final rule, the preamble to the proposed rule, and the remainder of these responses to comments for more discussion regarding why the final rule revisions are reasonably necessary.

1-61 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

C. Comments Questioning the EPA’s Rulemaking Process and Stakeholder Engagement

Some commenters suggest the EPA abandon this rulemaking because stakeholders were not contacted while the EPA was considering the rulemaking and prior to publication of the proposed rule. The EPA disagrees. The EPA acknowledges that for some contemplated rulemakings, federal agencies may utilize an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to seek early input before a contemplated rulemaking is proposed. While an ANPRM can be useful when the agency knows there is a problem but does not have sufficient information to propose an appropriate solution, an ANPRM is not a required step in the federal rulemaking process. In the case of this rulemaking to update the NPDES regulations, an ANPRM was not utilized because the Agency had sufficient information to provide proposed regulatory text, as well as an explanation of the issues involved in the rulemaking and the basis and purpose of the proposed rule. This rulemaking was conducted in accordance with the CWA, in particular section 501(a), and the rulemaking requirements outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 553).

It should also be noted that in developing the proposed rule, the EPA discussed the purpose of the rule with the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) in 2011 and held three dedicated conference calls with state NPDES permitting authorities through their association with ACWA in 2015. The EPA also consulted with the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the National Tribal Water Council, environmental groups, and NPDES permittees during development of the proposed rule.

Further, the EPA has provided multiple opportunities for public participation throughout this rulemaking process. From May 18, 2016 to August 2, 2016, EPA provided a 75-day public comment period to receive input on the contents of the proposed rule. The proposed rule and notification of the public comment period (including a 15-day extension) were published in the Federal Register (FR), see 81 FR 31343, May 18, 2016 and 81 FR 41507, June 27, 2016. More than 14,000 public comments were received during the public comment period from a wide variety of organizations, individuals, and mass letter writing campaigns on a range of issues in the proposed rule. The EPA considered all input received during the public comment period and used it to inform its final action on the relevant sections of this first final rule. Responses to the substance of the public comments related to revisions finalized in this first final rule are included throughout this response to comments document.

Additionally, based on state feedback and requests for continued involvement in the rulemaking process, the EPA provided multiple updates for states through ACWA meetings and conference calls. In addition, the EPA met with all stakeholders who requested time to discuss the contents of the proposed rule. Such discussions occurred with members of industry/utility groups and the environmental community. Records of each meeting are included in the public docket for this action.

As stated in subsection A of this response essay, the EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1-62 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

D. Comments suggesting that this rulemaking is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act’s cooperative federalism framework

With regard to the comments suggesting that this rulemaking is inconsistent with state and federal roles established in the CWA’s cooperative federalism framework, the comments received do not provide rationale or explanation regarding how the commenters believe this rulemaking enlarges the EPA’s role, or diminishes states’ roles as compared to the CWA’s existing cooperative federalism framework which creates a partnership between states, U.S. territories, tribes and the EPA. Without such information, EPA is unable to assess or address commenters’ concerns.

E. Comments about this rulemaking’s effect on state programs

Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would overburden and limit states’ discretion, likely have unintended adverse consequences for states and permittees, undermine historical flexibilities, create new challenges, or be difficult or impossible for states to implement. The EPA considered all input received during the public comment period and used any specific information regarding burdens or effects on states to inform the relevant sections of this first final rule. See the final rule requirements and the discussion of requirements and associated flexibilities in the preamble to this first final rule, as well as responses to comments on specific sections throughout the record for this rulemaking. The EPA will also work with states to implement the changes brought forth by this rule. And as stated in subsection A of this response essay, the EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections (which may have prompted the general concerns expressed in some of the comments arguing generally that the rulemaking would have undesirable effects on state programs). Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to those eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

F. Other

With regard to the comment referencing other EPA rulemakings, because the comment does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates proposed rulemaking (81 FR 31343, May 18, 2016), it is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment on this rulemaking and, therefore, does not require a response.

With regard to the comment describing an existing state program, because the comment does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates proposed rulemaking (81 FR 31343, May 18, 2016), it is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment on this rulemaking and, therefore, does not require a response.

1-63 1.b - General – Against Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

Commenter Name: Samantha Baron Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0019 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I am a current customer of Southern California Edison and I am seeing practices by the utility that greatly concern me. I have a familiarity with underground vaults (man holes) and know that majority of these vaults contain harsh chemicals (insecticides, PCBs, Priority Pollutants). I have seen SoCal Edison de-water their underground vaults directly into storm drains that head straight to our oceans. As someone who is a seafood lover, surfer, and swimmer this greatly concerns me. I do not feel that utilities are addressing the harmful chemicals that are in their vaults and are completely disregarding the rules addressed in the NPDES Permit. For the concern of my community, the ocean, and marine life, I ask that you make sure to address these issues and increase enforcement on Edison as I know they are not in Compliance with their current practice. Make sure they are properly de-watering their vaults and taking care of the harsh chemicals advised in the NPDES permit.

Commenter Name: E. Ellis Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0030-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

It's time to end access to companies to use and abuse for fracking and stop the pollutants frackers introduce into water systems and aquifers as if these were an endless resource. With climate change drying up many above ground ponds and lakes and toxic algae blooms rendering others hazardous, potable, safe water needs to be a public health priority.

Commenter Name: Donna Grace Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0032-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We don't want to have what happened in Flint, happen here!

1-64 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Douglas Merrill Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0038-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

There are technologies (e. g. iron coprecipitation) that can cost-effectively remove pollutants like arsenic and mercury from the effluents of coal-fired power plants. I tested them in the 1980's.

References:

1. Field Evaluation of Arsenic and Selenium Removal by Iron Coprecipitation. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, May, 1987. CS-5187.

2. race Element Removal by Adsorption/Coprecipitation with iron Oxyhydroxide--Second Field Test. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute. GS-6438.

Commenter Name: Bruce Tipton Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0049-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

You need to make extensive use of the substantial fines and jail times that the CWA provides for. Both to deter shareholders of corporations and to deter individual persons, including but not limited to CEO's, from ignoring or allowing others to ignor the letter of the law. It should not be easy for shareholders to find a CEO who is willing to pollute for profit. It should be EPA's goal to finance expanded environmental policing solely through the actual collection of fines and penalties outlined in a direct and clear reading of the CWA. Polluters must pay not just for total cleanup but for the policing and legal fees necessary to apprehend and jail them.

Target CEO's, board members and shareholders who obstruct justice by paying for the personal legal fees of CEO's and other corporate employees.

EPA should work to place undercover agents on boards of corporations, in the offices of CEO's and wherever else it is necessary to bring about absolute compliance with the CWA!

1-65 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Dal Page Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0050-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I DRINK TAP WATER!

Commenter Name: Sally Kruger Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0052-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I have been personally affected by the backlog of the SWRCB in CA as a dam owner upstream of us has 4 permits to hold back 990 AF of creek water, the largest privately held dam in CA. His permits expired in 1994. They would never be issued for this amount or allowing the method that he uses to calculate his bypass in our very thirsty CA world today. Yet, here we are, 22 years later and those permits have still not been reviewed, inspite of many folks efforts to prode the SWRCB to do so. Those of us downstream are totally dependent on that creek running to recharge our wells. The old permits have further allowed them to pollute the creek water with a concentration of boron high enough to kill steelhead fry. About 2 years ago the Regional board ordered them to stop putting boron contaminated well water into the reservoir. To my knowledge, they are still failing to adhere to this order.

Commenter Name: Carol Gerl Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0053-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is also time to institute a Public Water Minimum Flow and Aquifer Level for humans in addition to wildlife and livestock. I suspect revoking of privately held water rights and permits may be necessary in some instances but that is Life. There is no established minimum flow for the human Public as far as I can tell. It would be a crime to watch some bottled water company take water while American communities dissolve due to lack of potable water.

Watching the waste and pollution created by the fracking process alone is an Injury and an insult to our country.

1-66 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

It's time to get real, Folks.

Commenter Name: Christina Snyder Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0055-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

In my state utilities are some of the biggest polluters and are also pushing legislation that makes it almost unaffordable for people to make their own clean power with renewable energy. We need the feds to regulate the industry as was the original intention of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.

Commenter Name: Joseph Rolands Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0058-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I live close to Lake St. Claire and don't dare to swim or eat fish close to the shore due to the permitted dumping of sewage and storm water when there is just a half inch of rain! What a shame and how primitive.

Commenter Name: Jerry Colburn Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0059-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Flint, MI, still suffers because the state has not replaced the infrastructure ruined by industrially polluted water forced on its people by the state Government, with EPA connivance.

The RNC dropped the ball, failing to expel Gov. Snyder from the party, as well as moving Congress to intervene.

In reaction life-long Republican voters like me have left the Party.

1-67 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The Preamble lists only six basic reasons for the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How many reasons has the government violated in Flint? Count for yourself.

Commenter Name: Charles Yoder Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0062-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

And of course, the Chesapeake Bay constantly struggles against polluted water. I frankly don't know if the Bayside coal fired plants unitize the best possible water pollution controls, but if they pollute the water with the same indifference that they pollute the air then Maryland MDE needs some serious oversight.

Commenter Name: Rachel Makleff Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0063-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

That said I don't see any mention of polluted water owing to use for fracking. We need desperately to bring this type of pollution back into the law. Before it is too late and the country and world succumb to drought and war.

Commenter Name: Diane Wolfe Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0064-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-68 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Not only do I want their free ride to stop I also want them to be held responsible for the poisoned environment and also for the damage to people that are victims of their dirty practices. It is criminal and should be viewed as such.

Commenter Name: Damian Lopez Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0066-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

They are stealing a natural resource!!!

Commenter Name: John Ramsay Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0070-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

In particular South Florida water pollution is so extreme due to fertilizer and other runoff from the sugar industry that the algae blooms are killing all of the fish and the toxic fumes have become a hazard for people. The fumes sting the eyes and are dangerous to breathe.

Commenter Name: William Sommerwerck Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0071-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

"...you can use the latest toothpaste. Then rinse your mouth with industrial waste." -- Tom Lehrer, "Pollution" (more than 50 years ago)

Commenter Name: David Hennessey Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0073-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-69 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

We need to go after the Oil and Gas companies on their wastewater disposal and injection wells practices. I don't want one gallon of their wastewater and chemicals going underground next to our clean, safe drinking water ! Once they destroy and ruin our drinking water life as we know it will be forever changed.

Commenter Name: Patricia Blackwell Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0082-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

In Florida the culprit is Big Sugar among others ...we now have an algae bloom of historic proportions. According to the scientific community, this is caused by high levels of fertilizer and other toxic chemicals being released into our fragile ecosystem. Of course our current Governor is pushing legislation that would eliminate the restrictions that supposedly cap the acceptable levels ...and since that obviously isn't being done for the benefit of the people of Florida - we are wondering exactly who will benefit....it's a no brainer.

Commenter Name: Mike Robe Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0083-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Stop allowing the polution We need clean water. The adverse health consequenses of polution are un-affordable.

Commenter Name: Marianne Meadows Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0101-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-70 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Communities whose water may have already been polluted by mining companies should have the right to provide input to the EPA so that you can address these problems created by mining practices.

Commenter Name: Evelyn Kirby Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0104-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Furthermore, each permit needs to be reassessed before reissuance; some of these companies have been fleecing local governments for decades making a fortune with almost-free water we own! If they do get another permit, the costs should escalate over 1000% and permit length and amount of water drawn should also decrease exponentially! Local governments are cash strapped, and states as well. If we do decide to grant companies some of our water, it should be on the basis of how much revenue we can get!

Commenter Name: Michael Rusanowski Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0107-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

NO MORE FREE RIDE! It's not free to the public who has to pay the medical costs for LACK of oversight. If businesses can't afford to obey the law then they shouldn't be in business. We have to work together to keep our planet working for EVERYONE.

Commenter Name: Kristine Blake Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0113-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We live in Manchester, CT., and we have to fill jugs at the town spring because the tap water has so much chlorine in it, you can smell it. Then we get a WATER BILL that is astronomical, for water we cannot drink?

1-71 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Sue Mackay Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0114-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Please help us all, I live near the Great Lakes and I worry every day that they want to run more pipelines and their record for taking care of these pipelines is terrible. I want accountability.

Commenter Name: Cathy Della Pents Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0116-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I would also like to highlight Nestlé's lack of updated license [many years old] to bottle and sell for profit, water in the San Bernadino National Park. This is an egregious situation, especially for drought stricken California.

Commenter Name: Jack Scott Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0121-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Ocean Acidification finally made it to the front page of the local newspaper. Is it in time? Or does planet Earth die? WATER, the woe of Hollywood. To fix it they're moving to Atlanta, Georgia! Swift, Hollywood, but unnecessary, God will bless your Satanic ways, He's just that kind of guy! So, we haul up some kelp and FIX ocean acidification...... maybe.....and MAYBE Hollywood has enough fresh clean water from Northern CA to stave off fatal thirst...... maybe!

Commenter Name: Joyce Howland Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0128-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-72 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

Every one - power plants included - should obey the law. Our water sources are too valuable to allow anyone to spoil their use for others.

Commenter Name: Adrienne Larson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0130-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I was appalled at the EPA event at Animus River in Colorado. I am appalled by fracking wastewater contaminating wells and aquifers.clean water and clean air are a God given gift, not he opportunity to se, pollute for money and greed.

Commenter Name: Glen Walker Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0132-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I agree, it is high time for the EPA to stop allowing big business and other from avoiding the existing laws against water and air pollution. Do your jobs and enforce these laws to the letter.

Commenter Name: Robert Haney Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0133-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

As a resident of Florida, I am seeing a degradation of water standards by Governor RICK Scott's administration to eliminate any kind of regulation by the EPA. I remember when EPA was created under a moderate but corrupt Republican president. It was absolutely necessary then and more so now. The Clean Water Act was a great basis to protect our most valuable resource in Florida, clean waterways and beaches. The denial of environmental concerns by DENIERS such as Rick Scott's administration, Marco Rubio and a majority of Republican state legislators exemplifies PARTISAN POLITICAL IGNORANCE!

1-73 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Mark Olinger Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0137-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

The 4th of July is a day to celebrate the foresight of our founding fathers, the determination of generations of Americans, and the bravery of those who have defended our freedom. In the spirit of our founding fathers lets ensure all American have clean water.

Big polluters are playing a game with water safety, and it's time to end their free ride.

Commenter Name: Mark Stento Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0142-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

While I am fortunate enough to live in a mountainous region with a safe potable water supply, I am in the vast minority in this country. I am appalled and the degradation of waterways around this country.

Commenter Name: Judith Baumgartner Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0143-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I also think you should stop being soft on farm pollution, both air and water. If our water and air is polluted, it will not do any good to have food since we'll all die anyway.

Commenter Name: Barbara Riley Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-74 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0144-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I am astounding that there is not adequate oversight of permits in so many facilities.

Commenter Name: Patrick Smyth Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0152-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

The sad thing is, the polluters would rather suit than spend their money wisely and stop their polluting. This would strengthen their ties to their communities, instead of making us the enemy. How logical is that? Not very. So, when they suit, let the community know that the cry babies are not saving jobs, but neglecting their customers and neighbors.

Commenter Name: Stephen Wilkins Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0153-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Note that in my state (Kentucky) the head of the Energy and Environment Cabinet has publicly stated that, due to repeated budget cutbacks, there are not enough staff to monitor water quality. This in a state where coal mining interests have scoffed at regulations and filed fraudulent reports with the Department of Water.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment Excerpt:

EPA would be far better positioned to work with the states to address the underlying problems.

1-75 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Nina Bell Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment Excerpt:

Finally, we urge EPA to extend the minimum comment period beyond 30 days. While permit writers may spend years writing a permit, the public is limited to 30 days, a period which may include state and federal holidays, personal vacations, conflicts with other regulatory deadlines such as comment periods on other permits or state or federal actions, and conflicts with other scheduled work. In addition, when the needed materials are not available on line, the expectation is that members of the public will schedule times in which to review materials and perhaps have to make paper copies of them. In this internet age, nobody should have to do that when the materials can easily be made available on-line, by email, or on a server. And there is no rationale for limiting the public to such a short period of time when that time period is completely arbitrary.

Commenter Name: Kraig Grivette Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0209-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

The people at Water Legacy are wack jobs. Tell them to quit wasting taxpayer dollars and find a real job. And, as far as I'm concerned, the EPA needs to stop cherry picking the science that suits their agenda. I support mining in Minnesota!

Commenter Name: Pamela Check Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0213-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Please begin by throwing Nestle out of public lands. A foreign corporation has no place pumping water from American lands. In fact, I think their refusal to pay anything or keep their documents up to date is suspicious and needs to have a full federal investigation into their actions.

1-76 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Karen Cappa Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0216-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Nestle' has been stealing our water for decades in California and when we have been in a severe drought for 5 years this is criminal. If permits were updated this would never have happened for so long with no oversight.

Commenter Name: Leslie Scales Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0218-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

*To Whom It May Concern:

We submitted FOIA and complaint in intervention re: WillitsTrust.org consent decree signed Aug.22,1997, the same day our son died from two sips of creek water, to the Court of Judge Susan Illston inSan Francisco. There was no NPDES permit, as well as no required notices to ATSDR, EPA etc. The lack of enforcement and coverup includes our son's wrongful death and the alleged murder of an EPA inspector, PaulLeCoureye, who recommended 'hi priority' in 1986 EPA records.

To our knowledge there has never been a NPDES permit for dumping wastes into the POTW as described in workplans and Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies carried out by Henshaw Associates, enviro forensics.com and by Anne Farr. Your attention to the current state of affairs in Willits and at a leach pond on property owned by Peter Koch in Muir Mill Canyon is appreciated.

Commenter Name: Michelle Matel Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0220-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-77 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

While I tend to avoid vacationing in states where pollution is a problem, it is hard for the average American to keep up to date with this information; it is even more difficult for those whose presence in those areas is an economic necessity to protect themselves from water pollution.

Commenter Name: Diana Giaccardo Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0224-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

"Should" isn't a word I use AT ALL! What I am baffled about is the fact that your department is policing the states with what THEY'RE not doing correctly but YOUR DEPARTMENT still needs a petition and letter writing from THE PEOPLE, when WE THE PEOPLE have been paying your salary.! UNACCEPTABLE! If I did my job the way you're doing yours, I'd be unemployed. Maybe you too need to be replaced!

Commenter Name: Janet Flaherty Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0226-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is astounding that the oil, gas and coal industries are avidly polluting our water and environment without any observable concern on their part that they are affecting people's health and lives, as if people are not even an afterthought. They go on defending their polluting practices, refusing to do anything about it and in fact fighting hard against any regulations that might help improve their business and relations with the public. Instead they continue to intentionally sicken and kill people with their businesses in order to make a few million more in profit. These are not legit businesses run by upstanding citizens. These are criminals and should be indicted as such, for every person they have pre meditatively made sick or killed. Their businesses should be stopped until they make the changes that would keep people safe from harm.

Commenter Name: J Lemley Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0227-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-78 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

Pure, potable water is increasingly hard to find and come by. Polluting groundwater and relatively pure surface water is easy to do and very difficult and time-consuming to reverse, not to mention expensive. When polluters pollute and intentionally do nothing to correct the causes, they should surely pay a substantial penalty to rectify the situation.

Commenter Name: Robert Pierce Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0232-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Clean Water Act protection should include enforcement that's punitive enough to prevent pollution. The goal should be to recover the costs of enforcement but also to actually establish financial disincentives for pollution that affects the public at large. Thanks.

Commenter Name: Nolan Stone and William Hammerich Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Livestock Association (CLA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0247-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

I. CLA opposes any additional burdens that will slow the NPDES permitting process.

CLA opposes the augmentation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation on NPDES permits beyond what is currently required by law. Some commenters have suggested that the EPA should conduct a more extensive ESA consultation by partnering with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NCBA strongly disagrees. Any consultation that goes beyond the current requirements of the law will cause a disruption in the permitting process and will only serve to further complicate a permitting process which is already very time-consuming. CLA contends that the EPA is already meeting their statutory obligation in conducting ESA consultation. Because this would impact NPDES-permitted NCBA members, we oppose any augmentation of the ESA consultation process on NPDES permits beyond what is currently required by law.

1-79 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Maynard Clark Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0265-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Water is extremely important, and the Flint, Michigan, fiasco only underlines how fundamental water quality is regardless WHO is the state's Governor or who is the US President - regardless of which party is in power. All voters share the same physical vulnerabilities.

Commenter Name: Larry Bodiford Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0266-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

IT IS A SHAMEFUL STAIN ON OUR SOCIETY TO THINK THAT FOR SO LONG WE HAVE ALLOWED POLLUTING CORPORATIONS TO OVER-RULE PUBLIC AND PLANETARY HEALTH IN THEIR FAVOR FOR MATERIAL PROFITS! THAT SEEMS UNAMERICAN, UNCHRISTIAN, IGNORANT, IRRESPONSIBLE AND TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! POLITICS HAS NO PLACE IN THE VERY HEALTH OF OUR PLANET AND ITS LIVING CREATURES INCLUDING HUMANS!!!!!!!!!!!! DOING THE RIGHT THING SHOULD BE AUTOMATIC IN EVERY INSTANCE!

Commenter Name: Lawrence Rosin Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0267-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I've heard that the EPA wants to regulate power plant water pollution. But for them to be able to it in their full potential, you need to give them the resources they need. Without the resources, they won't have enough to catch the people who are polluting the water, or press charges on those who do so. Also that means that indirectly giving support to tohe EPA, discourages people from polluting the water, since they know they're more likely to get caught,and punished.

1-80 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Donald Anderson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0272-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I worked for Maine DEP for years and learned how polluters could influence the politicians to come down on the environmental department to ease up, loosen the regs, not see the problems. Staff was kept small so they couldn't do a proper job.

And my state has been a leader - at times.

And other states ...?

Commenter Name: Patricia Guthrie Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0277-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Clean water SHOULD be a RIGHT of EVERY American, regardless of where they live. The disaster in Flint, Michigan shows what can happen when strong enforcement of clean water laws are NOT enforced. And, there is speculation that what happened in Flint COULD be happening in many other areas in this country.

PLEASE DO EVERYTHING WITHIN YOUR POWER TO ENSURE THAT THE DISASTER IN FLINT IS AN

ODDITY AND NOT THE NORM...

Commenter Name: Deborah Larson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0282-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I live in Pittsburgh. We have come a long way in here in terms of clean water... we now have abundant life in our rivers. But, I am worried that we may be going backwards. Especially given the exemptions in environmental legislation for oil and natural gas development. As

1-81 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments hydrofracking ramps up, we NEED environmental protections to do the same to preserve clean healthy water for citizens and the environment.

Commenter Name: Shelley Hines Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0283-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

Thank you for your work to protect all Americans,

Commenter Name: Denise Potvin Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0286-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Locally, clean water has become a "hot topic" as the debate rages on about a power plant being proposed in the area. In this proposal, they state that they would like to use questionably "cleaned" MTBE-tainted water (from the nations LARGEST MTBE CONTAMINATION CATASTROPHE) to cool its turbines. The debate rages on about how such a feat of cleaning contaminated aquifers can even be accomplished. Then the residual water will be discharged into our wastewater treatment facility (again, a facility that is not equipped to handle such polluted water), then into our rivers and streams - and eventually Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. The "Ocean State"???

To add to the problem, ANOTHER power plant in our area, Ocean State Power, has apparently run out of its usual water source, thanks to the summer drought. It has resorted to using its backup supply, which comes from the Blackstone River. As a community that is largely reliant upon private and public wells, this is obviously very concerning to us, and the future of our potable water supply.

Commenter Name: Marie Garlock, PhD Candidate Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0287-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-82 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

We really need clean water to live.

It is time, and YOU alone have the power, EPA folks, to ensure that coal pollution stops causing CANCERS, neurological, respiratory, and cardiovascular illnesses. The community I partner with in NC, around the Belews Creek Steam Station, sees all of these illnesses at incredibly spiked rates, because of coal-related water contamination, so unequally born by residents in predominantly Black, low-income neighborhoods in the several miles surrounding the steam station and coal ash impoundments. These ponds and mounds are ALREADY leaking into groundwater, and this unchecked spread of toxins must be stopped!

Commenter Name: James Owen Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0288-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Laws should be enforced. Simple.

Commenter Name: Steve Spacek Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0290-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

The region has suffered decades of degraded water quality due to the coal mining industry. Both KENTUCKY and WEST VIRGINIA are "worst" governments in the American State Litter Scorecard (litterscorecard.com), for POOR public spaces cleanliness and citizen environmental protection conduct.

Commenter Name: Kimberly Rowlett Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0291-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We need to protect and preserve these areas in SE TN, in SW Bradley Co, SE Hamilton Co. TN and into N Ga areas around Cohutta, Cherokee Valley Ga and more. These historic areas do not

1-83 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments need polluting development of any kind whether its real estate developments or enlarged roads, highways, interstates, etc. These areas are upon an unopened sinkhole with lots of waters running through it and it needs more protections. We do not need TDOT, GDOT or other private or public agencies coming in and/or around these areas bringing pollution, etc. We also need these ridges to become officially known as mountain ranges such as "Lebanon Ridge" officially and permanently becoming Lebanon Mtn. with all protections possible. These areas need more protections for all areas possible. We need many more New Deal democrats helping on all levels possible, permanently.

Commenter Name: Jim Steitz Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0300-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

***The state regulatory agencies in the Appalachian region have made a mockery of their delegated responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, and function mainly to shield their client industries from the CWA rather than enforcing it. Defense of water quality in these states has fallen mainly to citizens, and to the meager resources at their disposal for monitoring, petitions, and litigation in lieu of the state agencies.

Commenter Name: Charles Brexel Sr. Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0304-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is not appropriate that some coal-fired plants, which have expired or not fully enforced or updated permits, are allowed to continue dumping toxic heavy metals like arsenic or mercury into our water.

It is not appropriate that some of our communities must suffer from higher disease and death rates because some coal-fired plants are allowed to continue dumping toxic heavy metals like arsenic or mercury into their water.

If utilities do not want or are not able to put the appropriate pollution controls for clean water on their coal-fired plants, they could retire those coal-fired plants and replace them with cheaper, more reliable and more efficient solar and wind power plants.

1-84 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The supporters of this letter include more than 200,000 US big and small companies, more than 214 Fortune 500 companies, more than 435 worldwide, institutional investors, more than 2,035 individual large investors, more than 7 states, more than 107 cities, more than 140 million citizens and more than 70 organizations.

Those who are still supporting coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro dam power; coal mining; natural gas as a “bridge fuel”; natural gas pipelines; fracking; Gulf of Mexico, Arctic or Atlantic Ocean or any offshore drilling; any new onshore drilling; tar sands tanker and barge traffic; tar sands oil extraction or any extreme fossil fuel extraction methods are stuck in the past.

Coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro dam power; coal mining; natural gas as a “bridge fuel”; natural gas pipelines; fracking; Gulf of Mexico, Arctic or Atlantic Ocean or any offshore drilling; tar sands tanker and barge traffic; any new onshore drilling or any extreme fossil fuel extraction methods are extremely expensive, deadly and reckless and we are way past the time where they are not needed anywhere in the world, any longer

It is perfectly clear that every country in the world, many thousands of companies and scores of billions of investment dollars are now rushing to install or buy only solar, onshore wind, offshore wind and geothermal power - there are absolutely no excuses (NONE) for installing any more natural gas pipelines, natural gas, nuclear, coal or hydro dam power at all and no excuses (NONE) for supporting fracking anywhere in the world.

In 2015, about 90% of all installed, new electrical power in the world was solar and wind power.

Electric power companies, in the US and all over the world, are already purchasing or installing only new solar and wind power, rather than natural gas or coal power, mainly because solar and wind power are cheaper to purchase or install. So, we no longer have the demand or the need to burn any more natural gas or coal for power. We no longer have the demand or the need to use any more deadly, reckless and expensive new nuclear power plants.

According to the 3/16/16 IEA preliminary report, in 2015, 90% of all installed new electrical power in the world was renewable power. 50% of all installed new electrical power in 2015 was wind power. Most of the rest of the installed new power was solar power.

Sources –

[1] http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?263511/Carbon-pollution-from-fossil-fuels-stalls- renewables-rise

[2] https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global- emissions-and-economicgrowth- confirmed.html

We repeat – In 2015, about 90% of all installed, new electrical power in the world was solar and wind power.

1-85 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

On 4/7/16, concerning the amazing growth of solar and wind power in 2015 in the world, IRENA Director-General Adnan Z. Amin said: “This impressive growth, coupled with a record $286 billion invested in renewables in 2015, sends a strong signal to investors and policymakers that renewable energy is now the preferred option for new power generation capacity around the world.” http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/08/renewable-generation-increased-152-gw-2015- irena/

We repeat – since 1/1/16 and before, solar and wind power are now the PREFERRED OPTIONS for new power generation installations around the world – and, that is for a whopping nine out of every 10 new power plants in the world.

We already are and have been installing the clean energy alternatives of solar, wind and geothermal power, which already are cheaper than natural gas and coal power – and, they are continuing to get cheaper than natural gas and coal power for the next 10 years and longer.

The trends are perfectly clear that the world is now, quickly, installing only solar, wind and geothermal power for all new electrical power in the world.

The trends are perfectly clear that the world is now, quickly, installing only solar, wind and geothermal power at an incredible scale.

Coal mining, the use of coal power, oil and gas drilling and the use of internal combustion engines harm communities and our health.

Investing billions of dollars on the infrastructure to support burning coal, oil and gas not only sells out our communities, it also prevents us from moving toward a sustainable energy future.

Solar, wind and geothermal power have been proven to be cheaper to install and continue to operate and maintain than natural gas, coal, oil, biomass or nuclear power.

Solar, wind and geothermal power have been proven to provide more than 3 times the number of permanent jobs than natural gas, coal, oil, biomass or nuclear power.

The economy has been proven to do better when solar, wind and geothermal power are used.

When solar, wind and geothermal power are added to the electric grid, the power rates to customers have been proven to go down.

More than 214 Fortune 500 companies, hundreds of thousands of small companies and many others are saving money and making more money by constantly continuing to transition to using clean solar, wind and geothermal power and using clean, all-electric vehicles.

It is not appropriate that we all have to pay with our ruined health and our tax money for the pollution that is done by the coal mining and oil and gas drilling companies, and it needs to stop.

1-86 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

In addition, it is perfectly clear that every country in the world, many thousands of companies and scores of billions of investment dollars are now rushing to manufacture and use all-electric cars, SUVs, vans, buses, trucks and trains.

There are absolutely no excuses (NONE) for continuing to invest in the outdated technology of gasoline, diesel, biofuel or natural gas engines rather than the latest technology of all-electric vehicles.

There are absolutely no excuses (NONE) for continuing to invest in the outdated technologies of tar sands oil extraction; Gulf of Mexico, Arctic or Atlantic Ocean or any offshore drilling; any new onshore drilling; fracking or any extreme fossil fuel extraction methods rather than the latest technology of all-electric vehicles.

It is perfectly clear that we will have many hundreds of thousands of new, 200(+) mile range all- electric cars on the road in 2017 and 2018 when the affordable 2017 Chevrolet Bolt, the new 2017 Honda Clarity, the 2018 Tesla Model 3, the new 2018 Nissan Leaf, the new 2018 Ford, the new 2018 Hyundai SUV and many other manufacturers' 200-mile, or greater, range all-electric cars will be massively purchased.

By 2018, it is perfectly clear that the world will be putting more than 400,000 new, all-electric cars on the road every year.

In 2016, China, alone, is already on track to put over 625,000 new electric vehicles on its roads every year.

In 2017, China, alone, will be putting over 1.2 million new electric vehicles on its roads every year.

In 2018, China, alone, will be putting over 2.5 million new electric vehicles on its roads every year.

In 2016, China is already putting over 40,000 new all-electric, city buses on its roads every year.

So, we will be greatly reducing our need to burn gasoline and diesel fuel from 2017 and onward. This will greatly reduce the amount of oil that we will need.

The trends are perfectly clear that the world is now, quickly, installing and using solar and wind power and all-electric vehicles.

The free market has already chosen solar and wind power and all-electric vehicles as the overwhelming, fastest-growing leaders in the free market all over the US and the world.

Thank you for seriously considering our requests and suggestions.

The following are all supporters of this letter:

1-87 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

- More than 200,000 US big and small companies including GE, AT&T, Verizon and HP

- More than 214 Fortune 500 companies including Walmart, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Apple

- 14 big food and beverage companies including Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola and Mars

- More than 435 worldwide, institutional investors and 2,035 individual large investors

- The six top Wall Street and US banks including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup

- The states of California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Vermont, New Hampshire and Hawaii

- NY City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, more than 101 other US cities and othermunicipalities

- More than a probable 225 million Americans who want more solar and wind power installed, rather than more fossil fuel and nuclear power, because solar and wind power provide less pollution and better health

- Over 140 million people living in areas with unsafe ozone levels

- More than 33 million people affected by chronic lung disease

- Over 19 million adults living with asthma

- More than 7 million children affected by asthma

- More than 43.15 million supporters of more than 70 organizations

- More than 1.4 billion religious followers

- More than 6.5 million worldwide companies, with over $7.3 trillion in total annual revenues

Most of the following supporters advocated an extremely strong agreement at the 2015 Paris COP21 UN Climate Meeting and supported the aim to keep the global average temperature below an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

As of 7/1/14, more than 214 Fortune 500 companies had set targets to either reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency or use renewable energy.

1-88 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Ending new oil, gas and coal leasing and fracking on our public lands and in our public waters would give us a much better chance at keeping the global average temperature below an increase of either 2 or 1.5 degrees Celsius.

1. More than 200,000 US big and small companies, including GE, AT&T, HP, Microsoft and P&G (the Ceres 'Climate Declaration' pledge group, the 7/31/15 support letter of 365 businesses for the CPP, the 'We Mean Business' group, the 'American Business Act on Climate' group, the 'Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’ Principles' group, the RE100 group, the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), the Green America 'Green Business Network' and more)

2. Hundreds of Fortune 500 companies, including Walmart, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Apple (215 Fortune 500 companies in the 6/19/14 'Power Forward 2.0' report, the Ceres 'Climate Declaration' pledge group, the 7/31/15 support letter of 365 businesses for the CPP, the 'We Mean Business' group, the 'American Business Act on Climate' group, the 'Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’ Principles' group, the RE100 group and more)

3. 14 big food and beverage companies, including Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola and Mars (See the 11/24/15 letter of 14 global food companies to world leaders calling for a strong global agreement and for government policies to speed up the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions)

4. More than 435 worldwide, institutional investors and 2,035 individual investors, who, over the next 15 years, are targeting to provide the financing for more than $90 trillion of clean energy and transportation projects (the 'Global Investor Statement on Climate Change' coalition, the 'We Mean Business' group, the 350.org 'Fossil Free' Pledge group, the 'Divest-Invest Philanthropy' network, the 'Divest-Invest' network, the six top Wall St. and US banks 9/28/15 '$90 trillion of financing over the next 15 years' statement and more)

5. The six top Wall Street and US banks - JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. (See the six top Wall St. and US banks 9/28/15 statement to governments, targeting '$90 trillion of financing over the next 15 years,' for clean energy and transportation projects.)

6. The states of California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Vermont, New Hampshire and Hawaii (signers of the 'Under 2 MOU' agreement and other commitments)

7. NY City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix and more than 101 other US cities andmunicipalities (signers of the 'Under 2 MOU' agreement, the 'Compact of Mayors' agreement and other commitments)

8. More than a probable 225 million Americans (i.e. 9 out of 10 in a comprehensive, 12-year Harvard survey, as of 1/1/15), who want more solar and wind power installed, rather than more fossil fuel and nuclear power, because solar and wind power provide less pollution and better health. Source - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/01/01/americans-want-america- to-run-on-solar-and-wind/

1-89 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

9. Over 140 million people living in areas with unsafe ozone levels

10. More than 33 million people affected by chronic lung disease

11. Over 19 million adults living with asthma

12. More than 7 million children affected by asthma

13. More than 43.15 million supporters of the more than 70 organizations listed below

14. More than 1.4 billion religious followers (See the 2015 religious leader letters to world leaders calling for a strong global agreement and for government policies to speed up the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.)

15. More than 6.5 million worldwide companies, with over $7.3 trillion in total annual revenues (See the 5/21/15 International Chamber of Commerce statement calling for government policies to speed up the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the above 'More than 200,000 US big and small companies' and more)

Companies, investors, entrepreneurs, owners, executives, business professionals, American citizens, states, cities, other municipalitis, organizations and other supporters of this letter are as follows –

More than 1,600 big and small companies, who have signed the Ceres “Climate Declaration” pledge, including Apple, Intel, eBay, Microsoft, GM and Unilever, and who are all doing business in the US, are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

Sources –

[1] http://www.ceres.org/issues/clean-trillion

[2] http://www.ceres.org/about-us/who-we-are

[3] http://www.ceres.org/declaration

[4] http://www.ceres.org/cop21/

[5] http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/building-and-real-estate-companies-join-call-for- action-on-climatechange

As of 11/25/15, more than 1,600 companies, including Apple, Intel, eBay, Microsoft, GM and Unilever, have signed the Ceres 'Climate Declaration' pledge to choose clean energy and energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions pollution.

Sources –

1-90 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

[1] http://www.ceres.org/declaration/sign/who-has-signed

[2] http://www.greenbiz.com/article/road-paris-corporate-crash-course-climate-and-cop21

[3] http://ecoaffect.org/2015/11/26/7-types-of-climate-leaders-to-be-grateful-for-this- thanksgiving/

[4] http://www.ceres.org/cop21/

[5] http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/building-and-real-estate-companies-join-call-for- action-on-climatechange

As the above more than 1,600 companies and the Ceres coalition of investors, companies and advocates are all committed 'to reduce carbon emissions,' they are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

Sources –

[1] http://www.ceres.org/issues/clean-trillion

[2] http://www.ceres.org/about-us/who-we-are

On 7/31/15, 365 businesses and investors, including industry giants such as General Mills, Mars Inc., Nestle, Staples, Unilever and VF Corporation, all sent letters to more than two dozen US governors urging them to finalize and implement their state's plans to meet the EPA's new Clean Power Plan's carbon pollution standards and 'expand clean energy solutions, attract new industries to the state, and create thousands of jobs'. Source - http://www.ceres.org/issues/climate-change/clean-power-plan/clean-power-plan

As the US EPA's Clean Power Plan is a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the above 365 businesses and investors are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

'We Mean Business' is a continually-growing coalition of 160 worldwide investors, with over $19.8 trillion in assets under management, and 355 worldwide companies, with over $7.3 trillion in total annual revenues, who are committed to reducing carbon emissions and scaling-up clean, renewable energy (not hydroelectric dam or nuclear power). Source - http://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/

As of 9/26/15, the 'We Mean Business' group is calling on world leaders to come together at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris and sign an 'ambitious' climate agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Source - http://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/blog/%E2%80%9C-paris-climate-agreement-will- help-businessesgo- further-and-faster%E2%80%9D

1-91 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

As the 'We Mean Business' group is committed to reducing carbon emissions and is calling for stronger government policies to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

In addition, as of 12/01/15, 154 Fortune 500 and other companies have signed the Obama Administration's 'American Business Act on Climate' agreement. Signers of this agreement have announced significant commitments 'to reduce their emissions, increase low-carbon investments, deploy more clean energy, and take other actions to build more sustainable businesses and tackle climate change.' Source - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/01/white- houseannounces- additional-commitments-american-business-act

Signers of the 'American Business Act on Climate' agreement are, also, calling for a strong agreement at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris 'that takes a strong step forward toward a low-carbon, sustainable future.'

Fortune 500 companies, such as Alcoa, American Express, AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Best Buy, Bloomberg, Cargill, Calpine, Coca-Cola, Dell, General Electric, General Mills, Goldman Sachs, Hewlett Packard, UPS, many other Fortune 500 companies and other companies have all signed the 'American Business Act on Climate' agreement. Source - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/19/fact-sheet-white-house-announces- commitments-americanbusiness- act

As of 12/1/15, the 154 companies of the 'American Business Act on Climate' agreement have operations in all 50 states, employ over 11 million people and have more than $4.2 trillion in annual revenues.

As the 'American Business Act on Climate' group of companies are committed to reducing carbon emissions and are calling for stronger government policies to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

As of 7/1/14, as 43% of Fortune 500 companies, or 215 in all, had set targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, increase their use of energy efficiency or increase their use of renewable energy, they are supporting all of the requests of this letter. Source - http://www.computerworld.com/article/2491464/sustainable-it/fortune-100-companies-saved--1- 1b-using-renewable-energy.html

As of 7/1/14, 60% of Fortune 100 companies had set targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, increase their use of energy efficiency or increase their use of renewable energy. Source - http://www.computerworld.com/article/2491464/sustainable-it/fortune-100-companies- saved--1-1b-using-renewableenergy. html

According to the 6/19/14 'Power Forward 2.0' report, put together by Ceres, David Gardiner & Associates, Calvert Investments and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 53 Fortune 100 companies had collectively saved $1.1 billion annually and decreased their annual CO2 emissions by approximately 58.3 million metric tons – the equivalent of retiring 15 coal-fired power plants. Source - http://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/new-analysis-america-

1-92 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments slargest- companies-are-jumping-on-clean-energy-bandwagon-and-saving-more-than-1-billion-a- year

In addition, the following Fortune 500 and other companies, together with more than 200,000 US companies, and more than 6.5 million worldwide companies, and all of the other companies listed and included in the business groups identified in this letter, are supporting all of the requests of this letter.:

- Walmart, Starbucks, Nike, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Salesforce,

- Apple, Microsoft, Intel, eBay, Yahoo, General Motors,

- Google, Facebook, IBM, Amazon, Siemens, Tesla,

- Amazon Web Services, Equinix, Rackspace, Box,

- General Mills, Mars Inc., Nestle, Staples, Unilever, VF Corporation,

- Volvo, IKEA Group, Hilton, Novelis, Sprint,

- UBS, Philips, H&M and Swiss Re.

Also, as of December 2015, the 49 big companies who have signed onto the Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’ Principles project, including General Motors, Volvo, Starbucks, Unilever, IKEA Group, Hilton, Walmart, Novelis, Facebook, Amazon, Sprint, Microsoft, Google, Intel and Yahoo, are supporting all of the requests of this letter. Source - http://buyersprinciples.org/about-us/

The Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’ Principles group makes it super-easy and faster for big companies to sign a big contract to buy the much cheaper, off-site clean, renewable power (not hydroelectric dam or nuclear power) that they want from electric utilities and other very large suppliers. Source - http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-a-greenbusiness- group-is- transforming-the-way-utilities-sell-renewable/404801/

In addition, 53 major companies, as of 12/06/15, who have joined the RE100 worldwide group and committed to using 100% clean, non-hydro, non-nuclear, renewable power, are supporting all of the requests of this letter. Sources –

[1] http://there100.org/news/14189468

[2] http://there100.org/re100

These 53 major companies, who have joined the RE100 worldwide project, include Coca-Cola Enterprises, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, Starbucks, Nike, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Salesforce, UBS, Nestlé, IKEA Group, Philips, H&M, Unilever, Microsoft, Adobe, Google, BMW Group and Swiss Re. Source - http://there100.org/companies

1-93 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

On 10/1/15, the 10 big food and beverage companies, Unilever, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Nestlé USA, New Belgium Brewing, Ben & Jerry's, Clif Bar, Stonyfield Farm and Dannon USA, placed full page ads [1] in the Financial Times and the Washington Post with their commitments to speed up their own company's reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and called on world leaders to do the same by securing a sound worldwide agreement at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris.

On 10/1/15, the above 10 big food and beverage companies also sent a joint letter [2] to world leaders with their commitments to speed up their own company's reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and called on world leaders to do the same by forging a robust worldwide agreement at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris.

Sources –

[1] http://www.ceres.org/images/food-statement-infograph

[2] http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/global-food-companies-unite-on-climate-action

On 11/24/15, the chief executive officers of Coca-Cola, The Hain Celestial Group Inc., Hershey’s and PepsiCo [1] joined with the above ten of their peers to again send a joint letter [2] from now 14 big food and beverage companies to world leaders with their commitments to speed up their own company's reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and called on world leaders to do the same by forging a robust worldwide agreement at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris.

Sources -

[1] http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/more-global-food-companies-unite-on-climate- action

[2] http://www.ceres.org/files/updated-global-food-and-beverage-leadership-statement-on- climate-change/

As the above 14 big food and beverage companies are calling for stronger government policies to speed up reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

As the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) advocates for sustainable, clean energy, supports the EPA's Clean Power Plan and wants a 'meaningful goal' and 'further action' for stronger government policies to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the 2015 UN Paris Climate Change Conference, the over 200,000 businesses and more than 325,000 entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals of the ASBC are supporting all of the requests of this letter. Source - http://asbcouncil.org/blog/progress-international-climate- negotiations

1-94 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

In the US, the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) represents over 200,000 businesses and more than 325,000 entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals. ASBC advocates for a sustainable, clean energy and clean transportation economy.

Sources –

[1] http://asbcouncil.org/about-us

[2] http://asbcouncil.org/sites/default/files/20150728_asbc_brochure_draft_00000003.pdf

[3] http://asbcouncil.org/issues/energy-environment

The ASBC supports the Obama Administration “in setting a meaningful goal that will help guide and inspire further action” at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. Source - http://asbcouncil.org/blog/progressinternational- climate-negotiations

In addition, the ASBC supports the US EPA Clean Power Plan. In a 7/13/15 letter to all US Governors, the ASBC said: 'The Clean Power Plan has the ability to boost state economies and create jobs through new investments in critical clean energy infrastructure and energy efficiency technologies, while saving money for consumers and businesses. The funds saved through energy efficiency can be used for spending on local goods and services while helping to boost businesses’ bottom lines.'

Sources –

[1] http://cleanenergyworksforus.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Letter-to-National-Governors- Association_final.pdf

[2] http://cleanenergyworksforus.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/E2-BusinessesGreen-clip.pdf

As Green America urged its supporters to urge President Obama to negotiate at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris for a stronger 'agreement limiting climate emissions with strict targets for reducing carbon emissions in the US to 50% below 1990 levels by 2020 to limit global warming to 2°C,' the Green Business Network of over 3,000 US mid-level and small businesses are supporting all of the requests of this letter. Source accessed on 11/1/15 - http://action.greenamerica.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15330

In the US, the Green Business Network, a program of Green America, consists of more than 3,000 mid-level and small businesses and more than 200,000 consumers and investors, who are committed to growing the clean energy and clean transportation economy. Source - http://www.greenbusinessnetwork.org/about/#gbn

Also, a continually-growing coalition of more than 400 worldwide institutional investors, who manage more than $24 trillion in assets, who have all signed the 'Global Investor Statement on Climate Change,' and who are committed to investing, every year, many hundreds of billions of

1-95 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments dollars in many more clean energy and clean vehicle projects, are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

Sources –

[1] http://investorsonclimatechange.org/

[2] http://investorsonclimatechange.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/11/22NovGlobalInvesorStatementClimateChange.pdf

In addition, 435 institutional and 2,035 individual investors across 43 countries holding $2.6 trillion in assets, who are all committed 'to divest from companies that produce coal, oil and natural gas,' are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

Sources –

[1] http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/09/22/leonardo-dicaprio-joins-26-trillion-fossil-fuels- divestment-movement

[2] http://www.arabellaadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Measuring-the-Growth-of-the- Divestment- Movement.pdf

[3] http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/

In addition, as of 9/28/15, the six top banks in the US, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, are supporting all of the requests of this letter. Source - http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/major-u.s.-banks-call-for- leadership-in-addressing-climate-change

These six top Wall Street banks are targeting to provide the financing, over the next 15 years, for an estimated $90 trillion that will need to be invested, worldwide, in low carbon, urban infrastructure, clean energy and clean transportation projects. They will speed up their financing of clean energy and transportation projects if there is a strong global climate agreement and/or strong government policies to speed up the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Source - http://www.ceres.org/files/bank-statement-on-climate-policy

In their 9/28/15 statement, they called for a 'strong global climate agreement,' stronger government policies to speed up the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and stronger government policies that 'will provide greater market certainty, accelerate investment, drive innovation in low carbon energy, and create jobs.'

Also, the states of California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Vermont and New Hampshire and all of the signers of the 'Under 2 MOU' agreement, are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

1-96 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

To date, the signers or endorsers of the Under 2 MOU agreement consist of 57 jurisdictions representing 19 countries and five continents. They collectively represent more than $17.5 trillion in GDP and 572 million people. If the signers and endorsers represented a single country, it would be the largest economy in the world, surpassing the United States. Source - http://under2mou.org/?page_id=228

The 'Under 2 MOU' agreement, a shorthand for 'the Under 2 degrees Celsius Memorandum of Understanding', is a nonbinding agreement among subnational jurisdictions around the world to limit the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius – the warming point at which scientists say that there will likely be catastrophic climate disruptions. Source - http://under2mou.org/?page_id=835

Signers of the “'Under 2 MOU' agreement commit to reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Subnational jurisdictions are states, provinces, regions, cities, towns, districts, municipalities and other such subnational administrative divisions.

As of 6/11/15, Hawaii passed a law that 100% of its electricity will come from renewables by 2045, with 30% by 2020, 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2040 as interim targets. As Hawaii has committed to extremely reduce its greenhouse gasemissions, it is supporting all of the requests of this letter. Source - http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/11/hawaiirenewable- energy-standard/

As of 12/2/15, more than 107 US cities, including NY City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, have signed the 'Compact of Mayors' agreement to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As the 'Compact of Mayors' group calls for national government policies to speed up the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and has committed to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions, they are supporting all of the requests of this letter. Sourcehttp:// www.compactofmayors.org/

More than 6.5 million companies, who are represented by 25 worldwide business networks from more than 130 countries, and are all members of the International Chamber of Commerce [1], are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

On 5/21/15, 25 worldwide business networks representing more than 6.5 million companies from more than 130 countries, who are all members of the International Chamber of Commerce [1], committed to lead the global transition to a low-carbon, climate resilient economy.

On 5/21/15, all of these more than 6.5 million companies called on world leaders to come together at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris and sign an 'ambitious' climate agreement 'which works with business to speed emissions reductions and build climate resilience.' [2][3] As they have called for government policies to speed up the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, they are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

Sources –

1-97 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

[1] http://cop21.iccwbo.org/

[2] http://www.iccwbo.org/News/Articles/2015/Global-business-sends-clear-message-to- policymakers-for-net-zerodeal- at-COP21/

[3] http://cop21.iccwbo.org/pdf/2015-COP21-press-release_03.pdf

The members and supporters of the supporting organizations for this letter also include more than the listed members and supporters for each of the following more than 70 organizations (more than 43.15 million total supporters):

MoveOn – 8 million

National Wildlife Federation – 4 million

Credo Action – 3.5 million

Sierra Club – 2.4 million

Avaaz.org US – 2.17 million

National Audubon Society – 2 million

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – 2 million

The Daily Kos – 1.8 million

League of Conservation Voters – 1.3 million

Left Action – 1.23 million

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – 1.19 million

MomsRising.org – 1 million

Earthjustice – 1 million

Environment America – 1 million Defenders of Wildlife – 1 million

Clean Water Action – 1 million

Environmental Defense Fund – 1 million

Ocean Conservancy – 900,000

Center for Biological Diversity – 900,000

1-98 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Oceana – 600,000

The Moms Clean Air Force - 600,000

The Wilderness Society – 500,000

350.org – 420,000

Public Citizen – 300,000

The Other 98% - 300,000

Presente.org – 300,000

Greenpeace USA – 250,000

American Lung Association – 230,000

Friends of the Earth US – 218,000

Union of Concerned Scientists – 200,000

Green America – 200,000

National Nurses United – 184,000

ClimateTruth.org (was Forecast the Facts) – 170,000

Oil Change International – 150,000

Food & Water Watch – 133,000

Environmental Action – 124,000

NukeFree.org – 120,000

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America – 95,000

Progressive Democrats of America – 90,000

SumOfUs.org US – 74,700

Earthworks – 64,000

Interfaith Power and Light – 58,000

1-99 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Physicians for Social Responsibility – 50,000

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy – 50,000

Energy Action Coalition – 41,000

Climate Parents – 38,000

American Public Health Association – 32,000

Waterkeeper Alliance – 24,000

South Florida Wildlands Association – 17,400

The Pew Charitable Trusts – 16,500

American Thoracic Society – 15,000

National Association of County and City Health Officials – 13,000

Pacific Environment – 12,900

Alaska Wilderness League – 10,000

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) – 9,130

Beyond Nuclear – 8,990

Groovy Green Livin – 8,220

Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) – 5,140

ClimateMama – 4,520

Mothers Out Front - 3,560 iMatter Youth - Kids vs Global Warming – 2,150

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace - 2,145

Mothers for Sustainable Energy (The Mothers Project) – 1,935

Florida Consumer Action Network – 1,810

Northern Alaska Environmental Center – 1,582

1-100 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Health Care Without Harm – 1,000

North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN) – 1,000 Mothers & Others for Clean Air - 640

Nuclear Watch South – 615

Communitopia - 310

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility in San Luis Obispo – 170

Trust for America’s Health - hundreds American Academy of Pediatrics

American Medical Association

American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Heart Association National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care

National Association of Local Boards of Health

Many more supporting organizations

Religious organization supporters of this letter –

In addition, more than 1.4 billion (estimated) supporting, religious followers, including Muslims, Catholics, Church of England followers, Hindu followers, Buddhist followers, Jewish people, other Christians, other Interfaith followers and other religious followers, who have all called on world leaders to come together at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris and sign a meaningful climate agreement to extremely reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, are supporting all of the requests of this letter.

Pope Francis has called on the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, Islamic leaders have called on the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, the Church of England’s General Synod has called on his followers, Hindu leaders have called on the world's Hindus, Buddhist leaders have called on their followers, Jewish leaders have called on the world's Jewish people, other Christian leaders have called on their followers and other Interfaith leaders have called on their followers to advocate for the signing of a very meaningful climate agreement to extremely reduce global greenhouse gas emissions at the 2015 UN Climate Change conference in Paris. Source - http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/islamic-declarationon- climate-change/

1-101 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

In a 6/16/15 Pew survey, more than 50% of Catholics are supportive of Pope Francis' call for very strong action to extremely reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Source - http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/16/catholics-dividedover- global-warming/

Similarly, it is estimated that more than 50% of the world's Muslims and the other religious group followers are supportive of their leaders' calls for very strong action to extremely reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Additional technology company supporters of this letter –

Apple, Google and Facebook are among the many technology companies who have all set goals to be powered by 100 percent clean, renewable energy (not hydroelectric dam or nuclear power). Many of these technology companies have very large cash assets.

Sources –

[1] http://www.greenbiz.com/article/can-silicon-valley-sell-big-business-climate-action

[2] http://www.greenbiz.com/article/road-paris-corporate-crash-course-climate-and-cop21

Amazon Web Services, Equinix, Rackspace and Box have also set goals to be powered by 100 percent clean, renewable energy (not hydroelectric dam or nuclear power). Microsoft has committed to be carbon neutral and IBM has committed to be at 20% clean, renewable energy (not hydroelectric dam or nuclear power) by 2020.

Sources –

[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/click-clean/#report

[2] http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/11/amazon-solar-farm/

Microsoft, Apple and Google are among the many companies that have created partnerships to install new wind and solar farms. Source - http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/11/amazon-solar- farm/2/

As of 9/10/14, Tesla is powering its battery gigafactory near Reno, Nevada, in the US, with 100% solar, wind and geothermal power. Source - http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/10/tesla- gigafactory-produce-20-electricity-needs/

On 9/25/15, Siemens, the German engineering company, announced that 'it aims to be the world’s first major industrial company to achieve a net-zero carbon footprint by 2030, following a reduction in CO2 emissions by 50% by as early as 2020.' Siemens plans on investing around 100 million euros ($111.5 million) over the next three years to reduce the carbon emissions in all of its production facilities and buildings. Source - https://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/25/siemens- cut-co2-50-2020-net-zero-2030/

1-102 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

As Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon Web Services, Equinix, Rackspace and Box have all committed 'to be powered by 100% clean, renewable energy (not hydroelectric dam or nuclear power)' and Microsoft, IBM, Siemens and Tesla have all made commitments to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions, they want to see world leaders come together at the 2015 UN Climate Change conference in Paris and sign a meaningful climate agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

As Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon Web Services, Equinix, Rackspace and Box have all committed 'to be powered by 100% clean, renewable energy (not hydroelectric dam or nuclear power)' and Microsoft, IBM, Siemens and Tesla have all made commitments to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are supporting all of the requests this letter.

Commenter Name: Gregory Lee Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0306-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I appreciate all your hard work. I have seen you speak in Boston a few times and always learn from you. I know it is tricky to manage the mission of the EPA within the restraints of contemporary politics. I wish you the best and thank you again.

Commenter Name: Gregory Lee Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0306-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

There is still lots of big machines pushing dirt around in these areas of SE TN, N GA areas such as that of Apison, E. Brainerd, E. Hamilton, Summit, Collegedale, Ooltewah, McDonald, Lebanon, Flint Springs, Black Fox, Old Lead Mine Valley, Blue Springs, and into Red Clay State Historic park areas, and areas such as Cohutta, Cherokee Valley Ga and areas around these. These areas and the landscapes, waterways, wetlands, natural springs, and (miles big) underground cave and/or sinkhole which has not opened up yet, are still having much waters pass through these areas, still providing waters not just for these areas listed above, but others such as that around the Coosa, Conasauga, Tallapoosa rivers, and eventually the Mighty Missisippi river, and its delta still need the waterways and above/underground geological systems are stil needed to provide water for the many different areas that use it, and is needed by endangered/migratory/threatened species throughout the SE USA. These areas listed above in SE TN, N GA areas were never supposed to be more than only sparsely populated rural areas at

1-103 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments most as was understood in the 70s. These areas need the protections of the EPA/DOI, National Forest Service, National Park Service, Climate.gov, but the TVA,state or local level agencies do not need to be in charge of these areas at all, however the other agencies, etc, will protect it with more integrity and permanently.

We need New Deal democrats put in office on al levels, in all areas, state/local/Federal levels, to protect these areas and others that are connected to these areas in the SE TN, and N GA. areas. We need our TN US 3rd Cong dist to ge blue and stay that way forever! We also need more strong (non-TVA, NON-state or local) leadership that will protect and preserve the democratic needs in the state, locally, and nationally. These areas do not need to be allowed to be further subdivided, as that does not help in any way.

We need Obama to return to finish his work as needed in all areas, along with his new Scotus and those soon to follow. We do not need others that simply want to be ruthless, and go against the needs of the country. Please do not allow more construction of roads, etc, via TDOT/GDOT, DOT, and/or public/private works. These areas do not need this kind of work done and the monies should be used in other areas of TN, that really need roads fixed, bridges fixed,etc as is needed all over TN, GA and so on.

Commenter Name: Kimberly Rowlett Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0307-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

There is still lots of big machines pushing dirt around in these areas of SE TN, N GA areas such as that of Apison, E. Brainerd, E. Hamilton, Summit, Collegedale, Ooltewah, McDonald, Lebanon, Flint Springs, Black Fox, Old Lead Mine Valley, Blue Springs, and into Red Clay State Historic park areas, and areas such as Cohutta, Cherokee Valley Ga and areas around these. These areas and the landscapes, waterways, wetlands, natural springs, and (miles big) underground cave and/or sinkhole which has not opened up yet, are still having much waters pass through these areas, still providing waters not just for these areas listed above, but others such as that around the Coosa, Conasauga, Tallapoosa rivers, and eventually the Mighty Missisippi river, and its delta still need the waterways and above/underground geological systems are stil needed to provide water for the many different areas that use it, and is needed by endangered/migratory/threatened species throughout the SE USA. These areas listed above in SE TN, N GA areas were never supposed to be more than only sparsely populated rural areas at most as was understood in the 70s. These areas need the protections of the EPA/DOI, National Forest Service, National Park Service, Climate.gov, but the TVA,state or local level agencies do not need to be in charge of these areas at all, however the other agencies, etc, will protect it with more integrity and permanently.

1-104 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

We need New Deal democrats put in office on al levels, in all areas, state/local/Federal levels, to protect these areas and others that are connected to these areas in the SE TN, and N GA. areas. We need our TN US 3rd Cong dist to ge blue and stay that way forever! We also need more strong (non-TVA, NON-state or local) leadership that will protect and preserve the democratic needs in the state, locally, and nationally. These areas do not need to be allowed to be further subdivided, as that does not help in any way.

We need Obama to return to finish his work as needed in all areas, along with his new Scotus and those soon to follow. We do not need others that simply want to be ruthless, and go against the needs of the country. Please do not allow more construction of roads, etc, via TDOT/GDOT, DOT, and/or public/private works. These areas do not need this kind of work done and the monies should be used in other areas of TN, that really need roads fixed, bridges fixed,etc as is needed all over TN, GA and so on.

Commenter Name: Jill Halpern Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0308-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

This remains a vexing problem primarily due to industry's ability to curry favor with elected officials. The corrupting influence of money in our political system is undermining our democratic traditions and discouraging Americans from voting and/or running for office. This ominous development may well end our experiment in representative democracy unless we alter this decades-long trend. For the sake of the republic, we must amend the US Constitution to state that corporations are not people (and do not have constitutional rights) and money is not speech (and thus can be regulated by state and/or federal campaign finance laws). Short of accomplishing this, no other reform of significance will be achieved. The moneyed interests will turn any reform to their benefit, often at the expense of the nation as a whole.

Commenter Name: James Klein Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0309-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

This remains a vexing problem primarily due to industry's ability to curry favor with elected officials. The corrupting influence of money in our political system is undermining our democratic traditions and discouraging Americans from voting and/or running for office. This ominous development may well end our experiment in representative democracy unless we alter

1-105 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments this decades-long trend. For the sake of the republic, we must amend the US Constitution to state that corporations are not people (and do not have constitutional rights) and money is not speech (and thus can be regulated by state and/or federal campaign finance laws). Short of accomplishing this, no other reform of significance will be achieved. The moneyed interests will turn any reform to their benefit, often at the expense of the nation as a whole.

Commenter Name: Bruce Hlodnicki Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0310-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is your job to ensure they are protecting our health and our environment!

Commenter Name: Amy Goldsmith Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0314-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I live in New Jersey and without the NJ Clean Water Enforcement Act, an enforcement tool that would put utility and company executives in jail for polluting the jersey shore and more. This was the beginning of the Jersey Shore's come back in the 1990's. Raw sewage and other toxics washing up on our beaches is rare now not the norm. The EPA needs to do more with the laws on the books and strengthen policies when they are needed.

Commenter Name: Stephen Klesic Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0316-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

While we are quick to only see the largest of the polluters the smaller violators are also causing problems. On a daily basis as part of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program you have consultants dumping Toxic and Hazardous waste into our waterways and the Regulators turn a blind eye to these issues because of the small quantity. The majority of this waste is unreported so it is difficult to provide an accurate number of how much is being

1-106 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments dumped. To use PA as an example you have over 1,000 open claim sites each of which requires quarterly monitoring. Using a very conservative discharge of 100 gallons per quarter this amounts to over 400,000 gallons of toxic waste water being dumped annually into the waterways of PA alone thus affecting the down gradient population resulting in the entire Eastern half of the USA being exposed to this needles pollution.

Commenter Name: Terese Buchanan Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0317-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I support EPA’s proposal to strengthen its oversight of water pollution permits and to stop the exemption for the natural gas industry.

Commenter Name: Terese Buchanan Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0317-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

As a resident of NJ, whose current governor is hell bend on allowing the fossil fuel industry to pollute our rivers and streams which provide our drinking water, I am asking you to step in to stop his and all others' who recklessly trade our clean water for monetary gain.

Commenter Name: Patty Marrow Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0318-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Dominion polluted my drinking well on Possum Point Rd and YOU do not care. They dumped 27.5 million gallons of toxic water in the private pond behind my house and YOU don't care. I've moved my kids out to keep them safe from toxins and You don't care.

Safe drinking water is a HUMAN RIGHT.

1-107 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

MAKE DOMINION CLEAN UP THEIR COAL ASH!!!!

Commenter Name: Sara Young Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0319-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

A great example is the STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA!!! There is a community in Fayette County, WV that has had such a problem with the health of their water concerning fracking. They have been fighting this issue for quite sometime.

If we don't take the health of our streams and rivers seriously and act quickly, we will pay the price in the years to come with illnesses and possibly unimaginable health problems because of the pollutants in our water supplies.

Commenter Name: Julia Claire Hernandez Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0320-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

BY THE WAY, I HAVE A SKIN CONDITION WHICH WILL NOT GO AWAY AND I KNOW IT HAD TO COME FROM THE ENVIRONMENT. WHETHER THEY SPRAYED AND IT WENT INTO THE WATER OR SOMETHING WAS JUST DUMPED, IT GOT 2 ME AND IS VERY PAINFUL. I HAVE HAD THIS 4 2 YRS NOW. IT CAUSES PAIN IN MY BODY 2 BE GREATLY INCREASED AS WELL AS MAKES ME VERY WEAK. I FEEL HOPELESS. AND THE ONLY PERSON HERE WHO IS OFFERRING 2 HELP ME, EVEN A LITTLE IS THE ONLY ONE PEOPLE DON'T WANT ME AROUND BECAUSE OF A DISHONEST FAMILY MEMBER, HIS GRANDMOTHER WHO CONDONES HIS BAD BEHAVIOR.

THANK GOD, I THINK HE IS STARTING 2 SEE THE LIGHT. BUT SHE WILL ALWAYS BE ON A MISSION 2 MAKE ME LOOK BAD N HE TELLS HER EVERYTHING SO SHE CAN TWIST IT AGAINST ME. ON 4TH OF JULY I TRUSTED HER 2 WATCH MY PURSE N SHE IS THE ONLY ONE WITH MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING TERRIBLE. I AM HANDICAPPED W/NO RESOURCES BUT HER SINCE SHE HAS A CAR. ALL MY NEIGHBORS KNOW I NEED HELP BUT ONLY 1 OFFERS 2 HELP W/GARBAGE N THE LAWN. HE CANNOT HELP ME GET AROUND OR "PEOPLE WILL TALK". I AM STUCK. I WAS CUTE BEFORE THIS HAPPENED, I AM HIGHLY

1-108 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

EDUCATED, BUT, YET, HANDICAPPED N GETTING WORSE. PRINCE CHARMING MAY HAVE SHOWN UP HAD I NOT HAD A "CONDITION" WHICH COULD B CONTAGIOUS IF WE WERE 2 BE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OFTEN N ON A REGULAR BASIS. (I'd like 2 think that since there are real gentleman of my natural breading and background whom i would have loved to have had, at least, the opportunity to date, you may better empathize with my plight.)

I am but a tiny voice in the wilderness. I speak 4 the populous as well as the God-loved Creatures of the wilderness (who i find their company and mere existence 2 be more true, trustworthy, n sincere than 98% of the people i have come to know since i left my "bubble"). Did you know a whale washed up on the beach, not too far away from here, about 6 months ago? So, "Free Willy" and I ask you and your esteemed colleagues 2 watch over us, since we are all alone in this world, just trying 2 stay alive while enjoying this amazing Planet n Country we are Blessed to reside within peacefully and in good health! Thank you for you time and attention in regards 2 this life giving and life enhancing matter,

Commenter Name: Drew Fenton Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0322-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I live in the Santa Cruz mountains where 25% of the land are watercourses (including springs). Here, they are logging redwoods INCLUDING EXCAVATING THE STUMPS AND BURL (LIGNOTUBER) root system - existing on or close to the watercourses. i've done everything i can to stop it, but the central coast regional water board a

Commenter Name: LuAnn Glatzmaier Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0323-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We humans are almost all composed of water. Creating EPA was one of the most exciting details of my life. My best friend worked at EPA in Denver in its early days, and we met some amazing, committed and visionary people. It was salvific to me that an agency had formed to assure us of clean air and water. I have sold air and water filtration filters over the years. These issues are still THE issues. I hope you have all the support you need to be good guys.

1-109 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Dick Brown Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0329-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I am not concerned ONLY about water in my own area, by the way. And my concern isn't even just one for our own country. Increasing usable water scarcity is a WORLD-WIDE problem. It interconnects us all in its impact. Recent studies have shown that of the world's 37 major aquifers, some 21 have been compromised to at least some degree, perhaps many of these beyond the possibility of full restoration.

Finally, while the term "right to water" seems to be gaining popularity of use, it is becoming less persuasive as an impetus for action. That's because the more dire the shortage of water becomes, the more accurate it is becoming to describe our shared goal as a PRIVILEGE for water access, not a RIGHT. When safe water is simply no longer available to everyone who needs it, the concept of enforcing a "right" starts to lose its credibility.

Commenter Name: Lynn Hartung Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0333-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Also ... please shut down the Enbridge's 63-year-old Line 5 oil pipeline that crosses from the Upper Peninsula to the Lower Peninsula through the Straits of Mackinac. Preventing a catastrophic oil pipeline rupture requires actions from our government officials. We must shut down the flow of oil through the Straits before there is disaster! The Great Lakes provide fresh, safe drinking water to 30 million people and holds 20% of the fresh water on the planet. We cannot risk Line 5 spilling oil into the Great Lakes !!! Note: Enbridge, is the company responsible for the largest inland oil pipeline disaster in the US history, that took place in Kalamazoo, MI. in July 2010,

Commenter Name: Joyce Loving Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0334-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-110 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

In a more perfect world, anyone--individual or group or business--who pollutes or otherwise degrades the environment would clean up the mess they created without being forced--by law, regulation, the market, or public opinion.. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a country (or world).

I use well water which has so many contaminants that I must use no less than 4 filtering systems to be able to drink it. I live along a river that runs north and whose waters eventually flow into the Chesapeake Bay. The community in which I live is very agricultural and the pesticide and herbicide use is a major contributor not only to my well's water problems but also to the Bay's water woes.

I haven't forgotten Charleston West Virginia's water debacle and how little that state did about it before or after. Ditto for the North Carolina Dan River coal ash disaster. In my own state of Virginia, our inaccurately named Department of Environmental Quality is working hard to allow one of our biggest polluters, Dominion Power, to store coal ash in a very unsafe way. In sum, I feel like I and all people who drink and depend on water have a huge stake in what the EPA does.

Commenter Name: Eleanor Mack Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0338-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We realize the need for balance. Everything should return to a balance so the movement continues to bring forth more balance. Things that are off will find to correct the way. If the Sierra Club and Earth Justice is this sort of correction to right the imbalance for many years of untethered pollution then free this source up to provide a balance once again. If this is ignored then a tilt in the atmosphere, the water currents and oxygen and hydrogen will be non existent. Perhaps our planet will be visited by others and they will surmise that at one time this was a healthy system that went terribly off balance without the intelligent interference for the return of balance.

Commenter Name: Grace Soltis Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0343-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-111 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Another seriously overlooked area affecting both air and water quality is the proliferation of public and private fireworks. Pyrotechnic displays have been increasing both in frequency of events during which they are detonated, duration of displays, as well as size of the explosions. Since they emit toxic heavy metals and serious amounts of smoke and other carcinogens they present a grave threat to public health and wildlife. Existing regulations are weak and not effectively enforced. With their immediate and long term impacts on safety and health, and their growing contributions as a major source of pollution and gases that contribute to climate change, pyrotechnics displays should be banned outright. The price of these displays in terms or health and safety is unacceptable. Our right to clean air and water is impacted each time they are detonated.

Commenter Name: David Svetich Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0344-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Also, consider charging for plastic bags at the checkout. Look how successful Britain has been in limiting bag usage.

Commenter Name: Annie Grewe Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0346-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

As I am sure you already know, Florida's Environmental Regulation Commission recently approved new human health criteria for surface waters. The rules would weaken state water quality criteria for some 120 chemicals and metals, significantly increasing how much cancer- causing chemicals and toxic heavy metals like arsenic or mercury that industry can dump in Florida rivers, lakes and estuaries.

While you are checking on states that have not updated their criteria, please also verify that states like Florida are not allowing too much pollution in our waters in their efforts to be industry- friendly.

Commenter Name: Claire Brothers Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

1-112 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0348-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I live in the state of North Carolina. There is the blatant ability of our state governor, legislators and the Duke Energy to skirt out of paying ridiculously low fines for the contamination that they knowingly allowed to happen on our waterways. There exist here the strong relationship of the big energy corporation and state government, without regard for the people and the effects on our environment. This has happened once, with the coal ash spill, and it will happen again somewhere or several somewhere in our state. We do need for the EPA to step up to the table and help us. Please, the laws are only as good as the enforcement.

Commenter Name: Jennifer Kennedy Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0351-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It is very Important to me that our drinking water and water used for agriculture be protected from poisons from Fracking and that testing be updated to be able to detect chemicals involved in this process, as I understand by reading The LA Times that oil waste water, sold to farmers by Chevron, was used to water crops during the drought in California that may have contained these chemicals and also that California is used as a dump site for Fracked waste water, some of which was illegally dumped into the fresh water supply. I no longer reside in CA, but my family and friends do and most of our produce here in WA comes from California. Like many, I also have my parents and friends, some already deceased, fighting recent battles with cancer, so thank you for updating and enforcing your permits.

Commenter Name: Ro Santiesteban Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0358-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We should require coal companies to put up a guarantee that they will clean up after themselves and not pollute our underground water. Whether this be in the form of an insurance policy, a bond, or an amount in escrow. We are risking taxpayers having to pay for cleanups, especially as businesses go bankrupt.

1-113 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Jerri Jarvis Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0359-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Pa drastically has felt the effects of polluted water in all of our water resources; including our public drinking, where rural communities such as mine in Confluence were drinking toxic polluted water for two yrs. before we were told there was a problem and it took 1 1/2 yrs. later until we found out it was caused by hydraulic fracking. We have had to buy our own drinking water; as well as cooking water for the past 2 yrs., along with having to pay for polluted water to shower and flush our toilets and wash our dishes; along with an access fee; as well as sewage. This is $100 a month for every household, and single living apartments; along with all of the water we are drinking and cooking with. Rural areas are exempt from every EP whatsoever; along with the all of the Republican majority's ties with Big Oil/Gas. Every life beholds great value, and serves great purpose in this state, the U. S. and the global community. It is time every person have the right to Clean Water, Clean Air, and the protection of our Health, no matter what the size of community they live in. All lives matter!!

Commenter Name: Betsy Thagard Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0362-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I am from the state of Alabama -- known by the Native Americans as the state of many waters. In my lifetime, I have seen those gorgeous waters severely degraded by pollutants, many of which come from coal mining and coal burning. Really poor people in the state of Alabama eat fish full of mercury and swim in rivers full of toxic pollutants, thanks to the coal industry and Alabama Power's coal burning power plants.

Commenter Name: Kelly Arellanes Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0368-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1-114 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

You have not done near enough for strengthening how you will oversee NPDES permits.

Nor have you taken any steps to stop the corruption within your own organization. The disaster in Colorado was just LAST YEAR! Plus your EPA representative in Michigan knew about the brain damaging to lead death of We the People in Flint and he did not do one damn thing.

The oil spills, on both waters and wetlands, you have only taken baby steps. Have the corporations obtained control of you also?

Commenter Name: Carolyn Moon Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0371-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We have not only the TCEQ but also the Railroad Commission, neither of which worry about the health of humanity when there's money to be made.

Commenter Name: David Dow Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0374-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Here on Cape Cod we will spend $3-8 billion ver the next 20-30 years to reduce total nitrogen loading from non-point sources (Legal action forced EPA Region 1 to revise our septic system NPDES permit in order to improve water quality and restore habitat in our coastal embayments. The Cape Cod Commission and Ma. DEP are approving the Targeted Watershed Management Plans for the 15 towns/Wastewater Management Agencies on Cape Cod, The towns/WMAs will require more resources (staff/contractors and $) to meet these challenges. EPA region 1 should have been more proactive to deal with this crisis here on Cape Cod and elsewhere in the country.

Commenter Name: William Fox Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0377-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

1-115 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

I live in WV, so we know about water that has been spoiled and old mines left to drain into waterways. Mountain top removal mining ruins water too, at its very source in the tree canopy where it falls, down through the rubble, it gets fouled beyond use.

Commenter Name: Linda Henson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0383-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

When traveling in upstate Pennsylvania several decades ago I was dismayed to see how the residues of coal mining had left huge, unstable-appearing, unsightly rubble piles in otherwise beautiful landscapes after coal seams had played out a half century or more earlier. Cleanup is part of the job, and especially where health and safety is concerned, the EPA is needed to stand up for residents who weren't able to make informed choices about environmentally damaging activities. We are counting on you.

Commenter Name: Bonnie Westbrook Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0385-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

North Carolina is one of those states that has deregulated many environmental protections, resulting in polluters being allowed to do what they want.

Commenter Name: Stratford Kay Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0404-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Especially do something in North Carolina, where the legislature and governor's office have pulled the rug out from under our water quality regulations and have revoked more stringent

1-116 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments regulations passed by counties and municipalities that go beyond the federal regulations to provide additional protection to water quality.

Commenter Name: Janet C. Dwire Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0407-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I recently read that fracking wastewater is being sold to be used on food-producing agricultural land in California -- without known contents of this water -- seems a potentially toxic combination for crops, wildlife, and aquifers.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment Excerpt:

V. EPA Developed the Proposal Without Any Outreach to Stakeholders; Instead, It Made the Rule Part of a Pilot Project for Streamlining and Fast-Tracking Rules.

UWAG has been tracking EPA’s work on the Update Rule for many years. As EPA explained in a September 2015 pre-proposal meeting with UWAG, the Update Rule previously was developed and vetted within the Agency and then shelved in 2012. The rule sat on EPA’s shelf for years as EPA pursued other regulatory priorities. Even back then, the contents of the Update Rule were unknown. More recently, UWAG learned, only from the administrative agenda, that EPA was beginning again with the Update Rule. At no point did EPA contact any industry stakeholders or otherwise take any action to put the public on notice regarding its consideration of the proposed rule. UWAG had to reach out to EPA to request a meeting to understand EPA’s intent and scope of the rulemaking.

When UWAG met with EPA in September 2015 to get a sense of what EPA was planning for the proposed rule, it learned that EPA had done no outreach and had no plans to do so. UWAG learned that it was the only industry stakeholder to speak with EPA about the proposal. It also learned that EPA had identified 10-13 discrete changes the Agency would make to the NPDES program rules and that EPA would not consider any other changes (regardless of their merit) suggested by the public. EPA explained that one of the reasons for this was that the proposal had been selected as a pilot/test case for a new project designed to streamline and fast- track the

1-117 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments rulemaking process. Therefore, EPA explained that it would be moving quickly to have the rulemaking completed within a year.

Upon learning of some of the substantial and controversial changes that EPA had in mind, UWAG notified numerous other industry and municipal groups. All of these groups were taken by surprise to learn of EPA’s plans, particularly its proposal to provide itself with the authority to re-review and object to administratively continued permits. Many groups, including UWAG, met with OMB to explain their issues with EPA’s plans. Since EPA published the proposed Update Rule, additional groups, stakeholders, and states have expressed their concerns with and disapproval of a number of EPA’s proposals.

UWAG believes that, had EPA reached out to the public, states, and stakeholders earlier in the process, much of the concern and disapproval could have been avoided and worked through. This likely would have resulted in a more robust, more effective update to the NPDES program rules. Instead, it appears that EPA decided that, perhaps because of the rule’s selection for the streamlining program, the Agency did not have time for public outreach and discussion and thus would not be considering any ideas the regulated public had about how to improve the NPDES program. That is a shame. As EPA recognized at our September 2015 meeting, the NPDES regulations have not been updated in many years and could be improved and updated.

Whatever the merit of EPA’s streamlining program generally, it failed here. EPA generally conducted a rulemaking in the dark and, had UWAG not requested a meeting on the issue, would have blind-sided nearly all stakeholders with its proposal. Acting in this manner is contrary to this administration’s policies and good government. More importantly, EPA missed an opportunity to make actual, meaningful changes to a program that needs updating. Instead, EPA has unearthed and re-proposed a controversial (and unlawful) permit objection provision, proposed controversial water policy changes, commandeered the states’ permit documentation process, and otherwise seeks to codify regulatory reminders.

UWAG urges EPA to abandon this rulemaking and call in stakeholders for actual substantive meetings regarding necessary and meaningful changes and updates to the NPDES permitting program.

Commenter Name: Gil Rogers Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Rivers Alliance et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0453-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

II. EPA’s Existing Review of States’ Draft NPDES Permits

While EPA has not included this topic in its proposal to address administratively continued NPDES permits, we urge EPA to take this opportunity to address a related problem that occurs in

1-118 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments our region. A state agency will submit a draft NPDES permit to EPA for review, and EPA will take no action on the draft permit, often because of resource constraints.8 When the state agency issues a final NPDES permit (often identical to the draft permit), the state agency will then take the view that EPA has “approved” the permit simply because EPA did not object to or comment on the permit. A brief from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted during an NPDES permit challenge, illustrates the problem. See Post-Hearing Brief with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Black Warrior Riverkeeper v. ADEM and Shepherd Bend, LLC, No. 09-04, 2011, at 19 (“EPA received the draft Permit and did not comment on it. ADEM takes this absence of a response to mean EPA’s concurrence with the draft permit.”).

We strongly recommend that EPA add language to its NPDES regulations that explicitly state that the fact that EPA does not comment on a draft permit does not equate to an acceptance of the permit.

Furthermore, even where EPA does object to draft NPDES permits, there is often no followthrough once a final permit is issued. Indeed, states can interpret EPA’s silence on a final NPDES permit as a rescinding of previous objections, whether or not that is EPA’s intent. We recommend that EPA clarify its position on this situation to avoid confusion. Similarly, we suggest that states be required to be explicit about how permit revisions are responsive to EPA objections.

Commenter Name: Gil Rogers Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Rivers Alliance et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0453-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

This notice requirement should apply to all NPDES permits, including general permits and nonmajor permits. Public notice should encompass draft NPDES permits and public hearings, and should be expanded to include issuance of final NPDES permits.

We also recommend that EPA clarify that permit revisions that result in more lax monitoring requirements are not “minor modifications” and therefore warrant public notice and comment. Under 40 C.F.R. § 122.63, only those modifications requiring “more frequent monitoring or reporting by the permittee” are considered “minor modifications.” However, some states in our region, such as North Carolina, are revising NPDES permits to reduce monitoring frequency without giving public notice. While we believe the law is clear that this is improper under the Clean Water Act, EPA should take this rulemaking as an opportunity to insert clarifying language into the NPDES regulations.

1-119 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the comment excerpts included in this issue category although the excerpts do not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to the elements contained in the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates proposed rulemaking (81 FR 31343, May 18, 2016). As such, they are not considered to be substantive or significant comments on the proposed rule itself, and therefore, do not require responses. To the extent commenters have specific concerns about local facilities or agencies, commenters should contact their applicable state environmental agency or EPA regional office as appropriate.

Some comment excerpts included in this issue category pertain to supplementary/introductory information provided by commenters regarding personal or organizational background information. These comments do not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in the EPA's proposed rule. As such, they are not considered to be substantive or significant comments on the proposed rule itself, and therefore, do not require responses.

Regarding the comments that noted that water is a valuable resource, extremely important, and a critical human right, because the comments do not provide specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in this rulemaking, these comments do not require a response.

Regarding the comments that expressed concern about water quantity, water rights, drought conditions, and establishment of a minimum flow requirement, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to water quantity, flow, or water rights; thus, these issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Some comments expressed concern about the history and development of this rulemaking and alleged that stakeholders, such as industry and states, were not adequately involved in the rulemaking process. Some comments also suggested that the EPA abandon this rulemaking and consult stakeholders to identify necessary and meaningful changes and updates to the NPDES permitting program. With respect to these comments, see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 1.b – General – Against Rulemaking, specifically Subsections A and C.

One comment suggested that the EPA add language to the NPDES regulations to make clear that the lack of the EPA’s comment on a draft state permit does not equate to the EPA’s acceptance of the permit. Further, the comment suggests making explicit that states be required to be explicit about how permit revisions are responsive to the EPA objections. Today’s final rule does not address the CWA Section 402 objection process portion of the proposed rule; any relevant comments on that aspect of the proposal will be addressed as appropriate when the EPA takes final action on that section of the proposal.

1-120 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

One comment suggested that the public notice requirement at 40 CFR 124.10(c) should apply to all NPDES permits, including general permits and non-major permits. The comment also suggested that public notice should encompass draft NPDES permits and public hearings and should be expanded to include issuance of final NPDES permits. Regarding these comments, see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 4.b.ii – Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c)).

One comment suggested that the EPA clarify that permit revisions resulting in more lax monitoring requirements should not be considered “minor modifications;” thus, such revisions should be subject to public notice and comment. Neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comment discussing the public’s ability to petition action from the EPA, this issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comment suggesting that the CWA should include enforcement that prevents pollution, including financial disincentives for pollution, this issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comments discussing the basic reasons for the United States Constitution and references to political party affiliation, because the comments do not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in this rulemaking, these comments do not require a response.

Regarding the commenters discussing the costs related to adverse health consequences of water pollution, this issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comment requesting that material subject to public review be made available on- line, by email, or on a server, see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 4.b.i – Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c)) as well as the preamble and final rule text of this first notice of final rulemaking.

Regarding the comment requesting that the minimum comment period be extended beyond 30 days, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to this issue, thus, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Some commenters expressed concern about outdated, expired, or backlogged permits. Regarding the comments discussing a specific outdated, expired, or backlogged permit, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to these specific permits; thus, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response. To the extent that the commenter was referring to the EPA’s proposed revision “Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44),” the EPA is deferring final action and comments received on this proposed topic do not require a response at this time.

1-121 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the commenters expressing that permits need to be reassessed before reissuance, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue; thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response. To the extent that the commenter was referring to the EPA’s proposed revision “Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44),” the EPA is deferring final action and comments received on this proposed topic do not require a response at this time.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern that there is not adequate oversight of permits, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response. To the extent that the commenter was referring to EPA’s proposed revision “Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44),” the EPA is deferring final action and comments received on this proposed topic do not require a response at this time.

B. Comments Related to State and Local Concerns

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about their local utilities practices of de-watering underground vaults containing harsh chemicals into their community, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to such activity or enforcement related issues; thus, these issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about the quality and cost of their local drinking water and describing the need to seek alternate drinking water sources, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to drinking water or the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act; thus, these issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about the drinking water contamination of Flint, Michigan and noting that safe, potable water is a public health priority, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to drinking water, thus, these issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the comments discussing companies paying local communities or states based on the amount of water the company uses, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comments discussing allegations against specific state regulatory agencies shielding industries from the Clean Water Act rather than enforcing it, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comments related to states not updating their water quality criteria in their water quality standards, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

1-122 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the comments expressing concern that state environmental programs have repeated budget cutbacks, lack of staff to monitor water quality, and ignored regulations in light of energy and industry concerns, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to these issues; thus, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the comment discussing a FOIA, complaint, and lawsuit for a circumstance that does not require an NPDES permit, this issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comment discussing avoiding states where water pollution is a problem, because this comment does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in this rulemaking, these comments do not require a response.

C. Comments Related to Specific Pollutants and Industries

Regarding the commenters suggesting that certain corporations ignore the law to pollute for profit and suggesting that the EPA pursue enforcement actions to collect fines and penalties outlined in the Clean Water Act, hold polluters responsible, and seek remediation, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to such enforcement or fees/penalties; thus, these issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about pollutants that are introduced into water systems and aquifers as a result of fracking and oil and gas companies and associated health concerns, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements specifically related to such activity; thus, the issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenter expressing concern about exemptions for certain industries, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about construction and operation of oil pipelines around or under bodies of water, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about climate change reducing the availability of water, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to climate change, thus, the issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about ocean acidification, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

1-123 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about air and water pollution from farms, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements specifically related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about the quality of water used for agriculture, especially where fracking water is sold to be used on food-producing agricultural operations, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about runoff pollution, toxic algae blooms, and effects on water quality and human health, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to runoff or toxic algae blooms; thus, these issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the commenters discussing available power generation technologies and techniques, such as coal, oil and gas, wind, solar, etc., and emphasizing a preference for clean energy alternatives of solar, wind, and geothermal power, over natural gas and coal power, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to specific power generation technologies or techniques; thus, the issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comments discussing support for the Clean Power Plan and noting companies that have signed agreements and pledges focused on reducing carbon emissions pollution and choosing clean energy, and companies that have committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, available technologies that can cost-effectively remove pollutants like arsenic and mercury from the effluents of coal-fired power plants, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to these issues. Thus, those comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the commenters discussing available technologies that can cost-effectively remove pollutants like arsenic and mercury from the effluents of coal-fired power plants, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to specific technologies for coal- fired power plants, thus, the issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern that some coal-fired power plants have expired or not fully enforced permits, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to specific permits for coal-fired power plants, thus, the issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concern about the health effects from coal-related water pollution, especially in environmental justice communities, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to these issues, thus, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

1-124 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the comments discussing the Clean Air Act, clean power, and renewable energy, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to these issues, thus, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the comments discussing that everyone, including industry such as power plants, should obey the law, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the commenters expressing concerns for swimming and eating fish close to shore due to dumping of sewage and stormwater concerns, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to these issues, thus, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the comments discussing specific water bodies, water quality issues, and generally mentioning specific state water programs, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to these issues, thus, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the comments discussing allegations against specific companies, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule includes requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comments suggesting that because industry has an ability to curry favor with elected officials, the United States Constitution should be amended to clarify that corporations do not have constitutional rights. The comments do not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in this rulemaking, thus, the comments do not require a response.

Regarding the comments expressing concern about air and water quality impacts from pyrotechnic and fireworks displays, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to these issues, thus, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

Regarding the comments suggesting charging for plastic bags at checkout, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to this issue, thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comments opposing Endangered Species Act consultation on specific NPDES permits beyond what is currently required by law, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to this issue; thus, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response.

Regarding the comment noting that the EPA would need to provide resources in order to fully regulate power plant water pollution, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule include requirements related to these issues, thus, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response.

1-125 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the comments noting water quality concerns from leaking underground storage tanks, because the comments do not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in this rulemaking, these comments do not require a response.

Regarding the commenters discussing specific industries that have caused water quality problems and asking how to notify the EPA of such issues, because the comments do not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in this rulemaking, these comments do not require a response.

1-126 1.c - General – Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2. Permit Application Requirements

Commenter Name: Timothy Pohle Commenter Affiliation: Airlines for America Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0189-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Reformation of application forms and updated public notification practices fit well within this paradigm.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the one comment excerpt in the comment code that expresses general support for the EPA’s effort to update the application forms and public notification practices. This comment provides support for the EPA’s view that this first final rule modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment.

2-1 2. Permit Application Requirements

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.a - Purpose and Scope (40 CFR 122.1)

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

Purpose and Scope (40 CFR 122.1)

ACWA supports EPA’s effort to remove the outdated provisions in this section. However, the association questions whether it makes sense to continue to provide specific contact information in a regulatory "note" that requires a rulemaking process to update. Perhaps EPA could find a more generic way to handle this issue or simply remove the note entirely.

Recommendation 4: EPA should consider alternatives to updating a note with contact details that could need to be revised again in the near future.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the one comment received on the proposed revision to the regulatory note to 40 CFR 122.1. The comment expressed support for the effort to remove the outdated information and questioned whether the EPA could remove the note entirely or provide a more generic approach than including specific contact information that requires a rulemaking to update.

Based on the public comment, the EPA considered whether to finalize the revision to the note to 40 CFR 122.1 or whether it could be deleted entirely or generically updated. The EPA has determined that finalizing the correction to the Note to 40 CFR 122.1 to delete outdated references and include the updated NPDES homepage website best meets the EPA’s goal for this revision. As stated in the preamble to the final rule, the EPA’s view is that providing up-to-date contact information in the Code of Federal Regulations will save the permitting authorities and the public time when they seek to contact the EPA about these regulations. This goal would not be met if the regulatory note was deleted entirely or used a generic approach that did not provide specific contact information.

2-2 2.a - Purpose and Scope (40 CFR 122.1)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.b - NPDES Program Definitions - General (40 CFR 122.2)

Commenter Name: Kevin Kuhle Commenter Affiliation: Iowa Farm Bureau Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0185-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

Not only do the proposed revisions to 40 C.P.R. § 123.44(k) and 40 C.P.R. § 122.2 exceed EPA's authority; they are unnecessary.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the comments received on proposed changes to NPDES program definitions at 40 CFR 122.2. The EPA is deferring final action on some proposed revisions referred to by at least one commenter. Specifically, the EPA is not taking final action at this time on the following proposed revisions:

• Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2); • Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2); and • Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44).

With regard to the addition of NPDES program definitions in 40 CFR 122.2 related to pesticides, the EPA’s goal was to improve programmatic clarity and bring the NPDES regulatory definitions in concert with relevant case law and the EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP). The final definitions do not result in substantive changes to the existing program or program requirements. See also the preamble to this first final rule and the EPA’s response essay 2.b.i.

Regarding the correction of the typographical error in the exiting definition of “New discharger” in 40 CFR 122.2, the revision improves programmatic clarity and does not result in substantive changes to the existing program or program requirements. No public comments were received on this proposed change. See also the preamble to the final rule.

2-3 2.b - NPDES Program Definitions - General (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

Commenter Name: Joe Giudice Commenter Affiliation: City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental Programs Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0095-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

COP requests definitions for "biological pesticides," "chemical pesticides" and "pesticide residue" should be included in this rule.

Commenter Name: Andrew Bray Commenter Affiliation: National Pest Management Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0156-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Waters of U.S. Needs Clarification

In September 2015, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a final CWA rule that redefines "Waters of the U.S." The final rule broadly defines Waters of the U.S. and expands those waters that fall within the federal government's regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to the CWA. The rule is currently under a federal stay of implementation while under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

The litigation concerning the WOTUS final rule seems destined for Supreme Court review where it could be significantly altered or struck down. As recently as May in U S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Justice Kennedy, referencing the government's power under the CWA stated," . .. continues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government's power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation." We believe moving forward with this rule will bring more confusion rather than clarity, which the EPA has stated is the intended objective.

The NPDES PGP and the Waters of the U.S. ruling are intrinsically related for obvious reasons. In combination, the expansion of Waters of the US, along with the requirement for an NPDES permit, will likely broaden the already unnecessary permitting and reporting requirements. The public could interpret the NPDES permit requirements to restrict pesticide applications into, over, or near any ditch, dry wash, wetland or other water body anywhere in those four states and other included areas, without limitation. Likewise, potential permittees will be left to guess

2-4 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments which pesticide applications would require a permit. This lack of clarity could result in litigation and ultimately the courts interpreting EPA's intent.

NPMA would request further clarification of what constitutes Waters of the U.S. prior to placing another definition into 40 CFR 122.2; and if the EPA proposed expanded definition is accepted then we feel a public comment period should be reopened concerning the POP to potentially address Notice of Intent (NOI) threshold levels due to the vast expansion of what constitutes Waters of the U.S.

Conclusion

NPMA appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments, and urges EPA to refrain from adding the definition "Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United State" to 40 CFR 122.2, until a final decision on what constitutes a WOTUS is determined by our judicial branch.

Commenter Name: Andrew Bray Commenter Affiliation: National Pest Management Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0156-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

NPDES Permits are Unnecessary and Duplicative Impediments

Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) registers pesticides only after each product has met extensive and specific health and environmental impact standards. During the registration process, EPA revises comprehensive human health and ecological risk assessments. EPA then opens the process up to the public for comment and further analysis. EPA expends immense resources on the registration and review of pesticides and uses the most current science-based information and peer-reviewed scrutiny. A thorough review and accounting of impacts to water quality and aquatic species is included in every EPA registration and reregistration decision. The principal take-away is that products approved by OPP have been thoroughly vetted; and if approved for use in Waters of the U.S. then why should the EPA Office of Water (OW) require an additional permit that is not based on science? Requiring water permits for pesticide applications is redundant and provides no additional environmental benefit.

The NPDES permitting requirement is the misguided result of the 2009 6111 Circuit decision in National Cotton Council v. EPA, where the court determined pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 301 and 402 that all discharges of pesticides into Waters of the U.S. required coverage. As you are well aware, this decision vacated EPA's 2006 NPDES Pesticide Rule, which we

2-5 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments believe correctly excluded NPDES permitting when application to Waters of the U.S. complied with FIFRA labels. We believe the court based their final decision on a plain language reading of the CWA, without fully taking into account the interplay between the CWA and FIFRA. NPMA understands EPA's current position and acknowledges the role of checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches prescribed in the U.S. Constitution, but we would be remiss if we did not highlight our opposition to the NPDES permitting system when using pesticides in accordance with label directions.

Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the Zika Virus a public health emergency. The most effective way to combat mosquito populations is to use EPA approved pesticides in water when mosquitoes are in the most vulnerable life cycle stage and before they can transmit diseases. NPDES permits discourage these treatments and add unnecessary burdens, confusion and real fears of potential civil litigation. Ironically, earlier this month you stated, "We strongly encourage the people of Puerto Rico to consider aerial spraying as this approach is safe for people and a proven way of controlling the spread of mosquitoes that transmit diseases, from Zika to dengue to chikungunya."1 We appreciate your acknowledgement of these effective tools that are EPA approved and our industry routinely uses, but they may have been used earlier and more effectively if there wasn't an NPDES impediment to safe and effective mosquito abatement treatments. Why do we need to wait for an emergency, when the solution is to encourage pesticide treatments to water without the unnecessary bureaucratic redtape of an NPDES permit?

NPDES permits are an unnecessary regulatory burden that wastes time and resources for federal and state agencies and businesses like the structural pest management industry that apply pesticides to protect public health from deadly and dangerous vector borne-diseases. NPMA is in agreement with many members of Congress, pest-control officials in federal, state, county, and municipal governments, and commercial and private interests that NPDES permits are duplicative, unwarranted burdens that do nothing to further environmental protection.

1 Press Release, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Envtl. Prot. Agency Urge Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to Consider Aerial Spraying as Part of Integrated Mosquito Control to Reduce Zika-Associated Birth Defects (July 7, 2016) (Web July 28, 2016)

Commenter Name: Heather R. Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: Washington State Department of Ecology Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0159-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Permit Application Requirements

NPDES Program Definitions (40 CFR 122.2)

2-6 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Definition of Pesticide applications to waters of the United States Adding a definition of “pesticide application to waters of the United States” is unnecessary and may have unintended consequences. Definitions already exist for “Discharge”, and “Waters of the United States”, both of which already cover the scenario of pesticides discharged from a point source to surface waters. The proposed definition, while the same as that used in the Pesticides General Permit (PGP), may unintentionally include agricultural pesticide applications, despite EPA’s assertions to the contrary.

The proposed definition references agricultural stormwater and irrigation return flows as being exempt, which is correct. However, many farm fields are next to natural waterbodies (even if channelized) that may be waters of the United States or have a confluence with a water of the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted point source to include vehicles which are being used to apply pesticides when those pesticides enter the water (applied over, or directly to). This includes airplanes used to apply pesticides to crop fields. So situations are likely to occur where agricultural pesticides are being applied to a crop field and overspray occurs, discharging the pesticide into an adjacent waterbody. Overspray would be applying a pesticide directly to a waterbody (League of Wilderness Defenders et al. v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2002)). Under the proposed definition, this discharge would be required to have a NPDES permit.

Without extra clarification in the definition, or as part of the PGP factsheet (which is a more appropriate location for the discussion of who is discharging) as to who is required to obtain a permit, the proposed definition may unintentionally include agricultural use pesticides as being a discharge required to be covered by a NPDES permit. If it is EPA’s intent to include discharges of agricultural pesticides as requiring a permit, clarification to delegated states is needed, as this is a change in direction from previous EPA messaging and the content of the PGP. EPA has not specified what chemical pesticides do not leave a residue or have no unintended effects so this clarification does not add any helpful information to the definition (Fairhust v. Hagener, 422 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Ecology recommends removing the definition of “pesticide application to waters of the United States” from the final rule.

Commenter Name: Aaron Hobbs Commenter Affiliation: Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0177-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

However, we oppose the court decision from National Cotton Council v. EPA, which instated NPDES permit requirements for FIFRA-regulated pesticide applications made to, over, or near water, such as those made for aquatic weed and mosquito control. Likewise, we do not support the codification of this court decision in the NPDES regulations.

2-7 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

All pesticide applications are appropriately regulated under FIFRA. During registration approval, EPA ensures the product will not negatively affect water use, water quality, fish, or other non- target organisms when used according to label instructions. As a result, the NPDES permit requirements do not provide additional environmental protections over those already in place through the FIFRA pesticide registration process.

It is critical EPA continue to allow the use of aquatic pesticides, as they provide vital public health and environmental protections. Many pesticides applied to, over, or near water are made to control invasive species or mosquitos that transmit disease. While aquatic applicators have complied with the NPDES permit requirements since the pesticide general permit was enacted in 2011, it is important these applicators are able to apply products in a timely and effective manner.

Commenter Name: Carl VanderKolk Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Cattlemen’s Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0181-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

MCA urges clarification that the proposed definition “pesticide applications to the waters of the U.S.” as it does not reference the definitional change contained in the Clean Water Rule which is subject to a nationwide stay while being litigated.

Commenter Name: Nina Bell Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

We support EPA’s proposals to:

• align the definition of pesticide applications to waters of the United States with current

federal law

2-8 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Andrew C. Brought Commenter Affiliation: SpencerFane LLP Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0242-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Comment No.1- NPDES Program Definitions - 40 CFR § 122.2 - New Definition of "Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States"

EPA should not adopt the proposed pesticide applications definition. EPA's justification for the new proposed pesticide applications definition is based on a single controversial court decision that: a.) was wrongly decided; b.) was inconsistent with 35 years of Clean Water Act interpretation; c.) conflicts with other similar statutory provisions and court cases; and d.) is currently undergoing legitimate jurisdictional aspects that call the entire decision into question.

In this proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposes for the first time in the history of the Clean Water Act to add a new definition of "pesticide applications to waters of the United States" to 40 CFR § 122.2. Specifically, the EPA proposes the following new definition:

Pesticide applications to waters of the United States means the application of biological pesticides, and the application of chemical pesticides that leave a residue, from point sources to waters of the United States. . . . See 81 Fed. Reg. at 31368.

EPA bases the entire reason for adding the new pesticide applications definition on a single court decision from 2009, National Cotton Council of America, et a/., v. EPA.1 The following comments are provided in response to EPA's request for comments and explain why the proposed new definition is inappropriate and should not be adopted. a.) National Cotton Council Was Wrongly Decided

The Sixth Circuit's decision in National Cotton Council was wrongly decided and the regulatory codification based on the decision would compound the error. Immediately after National Cotton Council, there was widespread criticism by agricultural stakeholders and governmental agricultural agencies such as the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) that the decision was flawed? EPA also opposed the ruling and sought reconsideration.3 Numerous legitimate shortcomings have been identified in the National Cotton Council decision; it is, however, beyond the scope of this comment letter to present all the errors of the decision. One of the primary flaws was the decision's finding that the Clean Water Act mandates a holding that there is a "discharge of a pollutant" subject to NPDES permitting whenever a pesticide residue makes its way to navigable waters. In concluding that the Clean Water Act unambiguously requires a permit in these instances, the Sixth Circuit misconstrued the statutory provisions at issue and reached a conclusion that conflicts with Congressional intent and other court cases including circuit decisions construing similar statutory provisions.

2-9 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments b.) National Cotton Council Was Inconsistent with 35 Years of Clean Water Act Interpretation and Jurisprudence

For more than 35 years after Congress enacted the Clean Water Act, pesticides that were used for their intended purpose were not subject to the Act's permitting requirements. To be clear, such pesticides were, and continue to be, stringently regulated for safe use and application under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. So long as the pesticide application was made in compliance with its label and relevant FIFRA requirements, the pesticide application would not constitute a "discharge of a pollutant." It was not until the Sixth Circuit's decision in National Cotton Council that the federal judiciary determined, for the first time in the history of the Clean Water Act, that excess and residue pesticides may be considered a pollutant for purposes of permitting under the Clean Water Act. Consequently, codification of the flawed interpretation would further frustrate the intent of Congress and historical EPA interpretations concerning the interplay of pesticide regulation under FIFRA and the discharge of pollutants (or lack thereof) under the Clean Water Act. c.) National Cotton Council's Decision Conflicts with Other Similar Statutory Provisions and Court Cases

The Clean Water Act's historical exemption for pesticide application is not an anomaly, as other environmental statutes recognize that when pesticides and similar useful products are used in the manner of their intended purpose, such chemical products are not pollutants and the application of such pesticides or chemicals does not constitute disposal/release of hazardous substances or wastes into the environment. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., for example, specifically includes a statutory exemption for the application of registered pesticide products under section 1 07(i). Simply put, there is no basis for liability under CERCLA for properly applied pesticides that have FIFRA registrations.

The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States is particularly instructive concerning how Congress intended that useful products as well as non-intentional acts of disposal do not run afoul of the statutory regime designed to protect the environment. In the Burlington Northern decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling that had found Shell Oil liable under CERCLA for "arranging for disposal" of a hazardous substance because Shell did not intend to dispose of the pesticide.4 The Supreme Court determined that the "ordinary meaning" of the term "arrange for" meant "under the plain language of the statute, an entity may qualify as an arranger . . . when it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance." Therefore, in Burlington Northern the Supreme Court concluded that "knowledge [of spillage of the pesticide product] alone is insufficient to prove that an entity 'planned for' the disposal, particularly when the disposal occurs as a peripheral result of the legitimate sale of an unused, useful product." The Sixth Circuit's National Cotton Council decision is inconsistent with this line of reasoning that when useful pesticide products are used as intended (even with anticipated but non-intended peripheral results), any excess or residue is not a waste or a pollutant. Thus, as in Burlington Northern, any small amount of excess pesticide or residue that might reach navigable waters

2-10 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments would be the "peripheral result" of the legitimate application of a useful product. In conclusion, the Sixth Circuit's flawed statutory analysis in National Cotton Council finds no support in the Supreme Court's Burlington Northern decision.

In addition, courts have also construed similar provisions of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., to exclude from the solid and hazardous waste regulatory regime useful products used for their intended purpose. In No Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, the court was faced with determining whether pesticides sprayed into the air become RCRA wastes subject to regulation. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court, "that the pesticides are not being 'discarded when sprayed into the air with the design of effecting their intended purpose: reaching and killing mosquitoes and their larvae. '"5 In an analogous context, the Second Circuit also held in Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club that the discharge of lead shot as part of the normal and intended use of that product on a shooting range does not render the lead "abandoned by being disposed of' within the meaning of that term under RCRA. 6 That lead shot that is used as it is intended is not considered waste simply because it may end up on the ground as a peripheral result of its use - is flatly inconsistent with the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of analogous statutory framework in National Cotton Council's flawed decision which found that the beneficial use of a product that is used as it is intended is considered a "waste" simply because it may result in a trace amount of excess pesticide being deposited on the water.

In short, the foregoing provisions of CERCLA and RCRA, and appellate cases construing them, provide further weight that National Cotton Council was wrongly decided. d.) National Cotton Council Jurisdictional Flaws

Recent legal cases concerning EPA's Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rulemaking underscore the serious jurisdictional errors made by the Sixth Circuit with this decision. In National Cotton Council, the court determined that the appellate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over rules regulating permitting procedures under 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1). However, other federal circuits and particular judges within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal have criticized the jurisdictional aspects of National Cotton Council which elevates the issue of whether the circuit should have even heard the case. As opined by Sixth Circuit Judge Griffin recently on February 22, 2016, "while I agree that National Cotton controls this court's conclusion, I disagree that it was correctly decided."7 Consequently, all aspects of the court's decision are questionable.

In summary, since the National Cotton Council decision is a weak case that may be effectively reversed, and the fact that EPA provides no other reason or support for the new pesticide applications to waters of the United States definition, the EPA should not promulgate the new definition to 40 CFR § 122.2. Instead, EPA should pause on codifying the new definition until after the recently raised questions regarding National Cotton Council's jurisdictional aspects are resolved to some finality and/or other justifications present themselves than just the single flawed National Cotton Council decision. Given the pitfalls of the National Cotton Council case, EPA and the delegated States would be required to initiate subsequent

2-11 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments rulemakings to later remove the definition if and when the Sixth Circuit's decision is nullified. This would be a waste of the EPA's and States' resources.

Comment No. 2 - NPDES Program Definitions - 40 CFR § 122.2 - New Definition of "Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States" Inappropriate For Biological Pesticides

As stated above in Comment No. 1, the EPA should not adopt the proposed new definition of "pesticide applications to waters of the United States" in 40 CFR § 122.2. Should the EPA ignore this comment, however, and adopt the new definition, the EPA should modify the definition to correct an error regarding the proposed definition's coverage of biological pesticides.

The proposed new definition is:

Pesticide applications to waters of the United States means the application of biological pesticides, and the application of chemical pesticides that leave a residue, from point sources to waters of the United States .... See 81 Fed. Reg. at 31368.

This proposed new definition contains a significant error regarding biological pesticides. Specifically, there is an important difference in the proposed definition's criteria regarding when biological pesticides need Clean Water Act permits and when chemical pesticides need Clean Water Act permits. If the new definition is adopted as proposed, the application of biological pesticides near and to jurisdictional waters will always need a Clean Water Act permit, regardless of whether it leaves any residue or excess. This may be because of the sentence structure and the use of the modifying clause "that leave a residue" which only modifies the phrase "chemical pesticides."8 This is a much broader permit requirement than the definition imposes on chemical pesticides that only need a wastewater permit if the application of the chemical pesticide leaves a residue. Adopting the proposed definition without revision would mean that biological pesticides are pollutants, while chemical pesticides used in the same circumstances are not. Since biologically and chemically based pesticides applied consistent with relevant requirements adopted by EPA under FIFRA are both EPA-evaluated products, treating them differently under the Clean Water Act is not warranted. Furthermore, since biological pesticides being applied for their.intended purposes, in accordance with its FIFRA label, are not wastes, biological pesticides do not fall within the scope of the term "pollutant" or of the NPDES program.

In summary, the EPA should not adopt the new proposed definition of pesticide applications to waters of the United States definition at 40 CFR § 122.2. If, however, EPA does promulgate the new definition, the proposed new definition should be revised to correct an error regarding biological pesticides. The proposed definition should be revised so that the definition treats biological pesticides no differently from chemical pesticides, exempting both from NPDES permitting requirements unless the application leaves a residue.

2-12 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

1 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009).

2 NASDA letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dated May 8, 2009.

3 See June 9, 2009, U.S. EPA Response to Petition for Rehearing En Bane, No. 06-4630.

4 129 S.Ct. 1870 (2009)

5 252 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2001) (distinguished on other grounds).

6 575 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2009).

7 Murray Energy Corp. v. DOD, 817 F.3d 261, 280 (concurring opinion)..

8 EPA could delete the comma before the word "and" along with modifying the sentence structure to treat biological and chemical pesticides the same as appears to be the intent in EPA's discussion on page 31347 of the proposed rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Nolan Stone and William Hammerich Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Livestock Association (CLA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0247-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

II. CLA urges clarification that the proposed definition “pesticide applications to the waters of the U.S.” does not reference the definitional change contained in the Clean Water Rule which is subject to a nationwide stay while being litigated.

The EPA seeks to amend their regulations to include the definition of “pesticide applications to waters of the United States.” The proposed definition states as follows:

Pesticide applications to waters of the United States means the application of biological pesticides, and the application of chemical pesticides that leave a residue, from point sources to waters of the United States. In the context of this definition of pesticide applications to waters of the U.S., this does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture, which are excluded by law (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)).

81 Fed. Reg. 31368.

The EPA does not clarify which waters of the United States (WOTUS) definition they are referring to in this pesticide application definition. The inclusion of WOTUS concerns CLA

2-13 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments because the Clean Water Rule (80 Fed. Reg. 37054; finalized June 29, 2015) is the subject of active litigation. Furthermore, the Clean Water Rule is currently stayed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. See Ohio v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs (In re EPA & DOD Final Rule), 803 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2015). Until the litigation is resolved, the reference to WOTUS will cause confusion and uncertainty with those to whom it will apply, including CLA members who use crop protection products. Because the courts have yet to make a formal decision as to whether the Clean Water Rule is legal or illegal, CLA recommends the EPA clarify that the term identified in the definition “Pesticide applications to waters of the United States” references the definition of WOTUS in pre-existing guidance and regulations and not the definition which is currently the subject of active litigation and the nationwide stay.

Commenter Name: Tracy Brunner and Brenda Richards Commenter Affiliation: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Public Lands Council (PLC) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0248-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

III. NCBA urges clarification that the proposed definition “pesticide applications to the waters of the U.S.” does not reference the definitional change contained in the Clean Water Rule which is subject to a nationwide stay while being litigated.

The EPA seeks to amend their regulations to include the definition of “pesticide applications to waters of the United States.” The proposed definition states as follows:

Pesticide applications to waters of the United States means the application of biological pesticides, and the application of chemical pesticides that leave a residue, from point sources to waters of the United States. In the context of this definition of pesticide applications to waters of the U.S., this does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture, which are excluded by law (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)).

81 Fed. Reg. 31368. The EPA does not clarify which waters of the United States (WOTUS) definition they are referring to in this pesticide application definition. The inclusion of WOTUS concerns NCBA because the Clean Water Rule (80 Fed. Reg. 37054; finalized June 29, 2015) is the subject of active litigation. Furthermore, the Clean Water Rule is currently stayed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. See Ohio v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs (In re EPA & DOD Final Rule), 803 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2015). Until the litigation is resolved, the reference to WOTUS will cause confusion and uncertainty with those to whom it will apply, including NCBA members who use crop protection products. Because the courts have yet to make a formal decision as to whether the Clean Water Rule is legal or illegal, NCBA recommends the EPA clarify that the term identified in the definition “Pesticide applications to waters of the United States” references the

2-14 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments definition of WOTUS in preexisting guidance and regulations and not the definition which is currently the subject of active litigation and the nationwide stay.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

• Definition of “Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States”

EPA must correct its proposed definition for “pesticide applications to waters of the United States” to be consistent with existing law. First, the definition must make clear that terrestrial and aerial chemical pesticides need not “leave a residue” in waters to qualify as pollutants. Second, the definition must unambiguously indicate that all biological pesticides are “biological materials,” and unlike chemical pesticides, need not be “wastes” to qualify as pollutants. We propose an alternate definition that that accurately reflects the National Cotton Council interpretation of the Clean Water Act.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 61

Comment Excerpt:

V. DEFINITION OF “PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.”

As part of this rulemaking, EPA proposes to add a definition of “pesticide applications to waters of the United States,” to ensure that the regulations are consistent with the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009).213

In section III.A.2.(a) of the preamble, EPA states:

EPA proposes to add a definition of “pesticide applications to waters of the United States.” In 2009, the decision in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) found that point source discharges of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue to waters of the United States are pollutants under the CWA and therefore require NPDES

2-15 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments permits. EPA, and subsequently authorized states, developed a Pesticide General Permit (PGP) to permit discharges for certain use patterns. EPA finalized its PGP in October 2011.

This proposal defines the term “pesticide applications to waters of the United States” to mean point source discharges to waters of the United States resulting from the application of biological pesticides or chemical pesticides that leave a residue. This definition would clarify who is already regulated by ensuring that the NPDES regulations are consistent with the 6th Circuit decision. By defining “pesticide applications to waters of the United States” in its comprehensive NPDES definitions at 40 CFR 122.2 in the same way as the PGP defines covered activities, EPA would increase clarity and consistency. This definition would not in any way change which pesticide discharges are subject to NPDES permitting.

EPA seeks comments on this proposed definition.214

This proposed new definition purports to be “consistent with the 6th Circuit decision,” but this is not the case. EPA’s proposed definition is problematic for at least two important reasons discussed below.

A. Terrestrial and Aerial Chemical Pesticides Need Not “Leave a Residue” in waters to Qualify as Pollutants.

The court in National Cotton Council concluded that any discharge to waters of chemical pesticides not intended for use in waters (e.g., mosquito adulticides that kill their targets only in the air and serve no useful purpose in waters) requires an NPDES permit regardless of whether a "residue" is "left" in the water. The definitional requirement that a chemical pesticide "leave a residue" to qualify as a discharge of a pollutant applies only to aquatic chemical pesticides, i.e., those intentionally added to waters to serve their intended purposes. Under the court’s reasoning, residue left after an aquatic chemical pesticide has finished serving its intended purpose in waters is the portion of that pesticide application that qualifies as "chemical waste,” and is thus a pollutant.

As the court explained:215

Therefore, at least two easily defined sets of circumstances arise whereby chemical pesticides qualify as pollutants under the Clean Water Act. In the first circumstance, a chemical pesticide is initially applied to land or dispersed in the air—these pesticides are sometimes referred to as either “terrestrial pesticides” or “aerial pesticides” and include applications “above” or “near” waterways. At some point following application, excess pesticide or residual pesticide finds its way into the navigable waters of the United States. Pesticides applied in this way and later affecting the water are necessarily “discarded,” “superfluous,” or “excess” chemical. Such chemical pesticide residuals meet the Clean Water Act’s definition of “chemical waste.”

In the second circumstance, a chemical pesticide is applied directly and purposefully to navigable waters to serve a beneficial purpose—such pesticides are often referred to as “aqueous” or “aquatic” pesticides. As contemplated by the EPA, if residual aquatic pesticide “remain[s] in the water after the application and [the pesticide’s] intended purpose has been

2-16 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments completed,” then the residue would likewise qualify as a “chemical waste.” (EPA Br. 29-30.) As such, these chemical wastes would unambiguously fall within the ambit of the Clean Water Act.

EPA's newly proposed definition arguably conflates the court’s requirements for these two separate and distinct "defined sets of circumstances," and would potentially impose upon National Cotton Council’s “first circumstance” the need to prove that a "residue" is "left" in the water for some undefined period of time. But as the above quotations plainly reveal, this is not what National Cotton Council requires. Rather, under the “first circumstance,” any point source discharge of a terrestrial or aerial chemical pesticide (i.e., one that is not intended for use in waters) that enters waters is “residual” by definition (“Pesticides applied in this way and later affecting the water are necessarily “discarded,” “superfluous,” or “excess” chemical. Such chemical pesticide residuals meet the Clean Water Act’s definition of “chemical waste.”). National Cotton Council, 553 F.3d at 937 (emphasis added).

Thus, in the “first circumstance,” if a regulator or citizen plaintiff proves that an unpermitted discharge of chemical mosquito adulticides sprayed over waters entered such waters, the discharge of such judicially-defined “discarded,” “superfluous,” “excess,” “residual,” chemical pesticide immediately qualifies as a discharge of a pollutant under the Act. There is no need for additional proof that any “residue” has been “left” in such waters as exists with additions of aquatic chemical pesticides under National Cotton Council’s “second circumstance.”

B. All Biological Pesticides are “Biological Materials,” and Unlike Chemical Pesticides, Need Not Be “Wastes” to Qualify as Pollutants.

EPA's proposed definition is also insufficient because it can be interpreted under ordinary construction to mean that the "leaves a residue" requirement applies to biological, as well as chemical, pesticides. This would be utterly inconsistent with National Cotton Council, which differentiated "biological materials" from "chemical wastes" (each part of section 502(6)’s “Pollutant” definition), and found that any point source discharge of biological pesticides to waters requires a permit regardless of whether the material can be characterized as "waste" in waters:216

The term “biological materials” cannot be read to exclude biological pesticides or their residuals. The EPA’s Final Rule treats biological pesticides no differently from chemical pesticides, exempting both from NPDES permitting requirements in certain circumstances. See 71 Fed. Reg. at 68,492. We find this interpretation to be contrary to the plain meaning of the Clean Water Act. In 33 U.S.C. § 1362, Congress purposefully included the term “biological materials,” rather than a more limited term such as “biological wastes.” Congress could easily have drafted the list of pollutants in the Clean Water Act to include “chemical wastes” and “biological wastes.” But, here, the word “waste” does not accompany “biological materials.” Thus, if we are to give meaning to the word “waste” in “chemical waste,” we must recognize Congress’s intent to treat biological and chemical pesticides differently.

Under EPA's framing of the proposed definition – "point source discharges to waters of the United States resulting from the application of biological pesticides or chemical pesticides that

2-17 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments leave a residue" – the phrase "that leave a residue" can arguably be interpreted to modify biological, as well as chemical, pesticides in contravention of National Cotton Council.

For each of the above reasons, EPA’s proposed definition is inconsistent with National Cotton Council. At a minimum, the definition, if finalized, will cause confusion to regulators, the regulated community and the public regarding whether and when permit coverage is required for discharges of different types of pesticides to waters. Such confusion should obviously be avoided, especially given the stated purpose for the new proposed definition to “increase clarity and consistency.”217 EPA should decline to finalize the proposed definition. One possible definition that would be consistent with the Clean Water Act and the National Cotton Council decision is as follows:

Pesticide application to waters of the United States means (1) any application of pesticide not made in compliance with an approved Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act label, where such pesticide enters waters of the United States, (2) any application of biological pesticide to waters of the United States, (3) any aerial or terrestrial application of chemical pesticide, where any of that pesticide enters waters of the United States, or (4) the intentional application of chemical pesticide to waters of the United States, where such pesticide leaves a residue after its intended purpose has been completed.

We urge EPA to finalize this alternative definition, or one that accurately reflects the National Cotton Council interpretation of the Clean Water Act.218

213 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,347.

214 Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).

215 National Cotton Council, 553 F.3d at 936-37 (emphasis added).

216 National Cotton Council, 553 F.3d at 938 (emphasis added).

217 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,347.

218 Given EPA’s purpose of updating the definition to reflect that decision, as clearly expressed in the preamble, and EPA’s request for comment regarding the adequacy of its proposed definition, the potential for EPA to adopt an alternative definition was adequately noticed.

Commenter Name: Robert W. Johnson Commenter Affiliation: National Water Resources Association (NWRA)

2-18 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0260-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Proposed definition of Pesticide Applications to waters of the United States

The EPA proposes to add a definition of ‘‘pesticide applications to waters of the United States’’ at 40 CFR 122.2. Pesticides are important tools that, when properly applied, can provide numerous societal benefits. These benefits include protecting public health from mosquito borne diseases like West Nile and Zika. Pesticides also help produce a safe, affordable, and abundant domestic food supply. NWRA appreciates the statement that this definition would not expand which pesticide discharges are subject to NPDES permitting. However, it is difficult to fully understand the scope of the proposed definition. This is in part because the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers definition of what constitutes a “waters of the United States” is the subject of pending litigation and the courts have stayed the implementation of this rule. In light of this NWRA believes that the EPA should consider removing this proposed definition at this time.

Commenter Name: Jennifer C. Chavez Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0411-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

IV. Definition of “pesticide application to waters of the United States.”

While we agree with the need to define “pesticide application to waters of the United States,” we cannot support the proposed definition because it is too narrow and is not consistent with the court decision in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009). The proposed rule would define “pesticide application to waters of the United States” as “the application of biological pesticides, and the application of chemical pesticides that leave a residue, from point sources to waters of the United States,ʺ with the exception of agricultural stormwater and return flows. 81 Fed. Reg. 31,368/2. This definition is under‐inclusive, as discussed below. We therefore urge EPA to adopt an alternative definition that accurately reflects the court’s decision.

The court in National Cotton Council discussed two broad classes of pesticides: chemical and biological. Within the broad category of chemical pesticides, the court recognized “two easily defined sets of circumstances arise whereby chemical pesticides qualify as pollutants under the Clean Water Act”:

In the first circumstance, a chemical pesticide is initially applied to land or dispersed in the air— these pesticides are sometimes referred to as either “terrestrial pesticides” or “aerial pesticides”

2-19 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments and include applications “above” or “near” waterways. At some point following application, excess pesticide or residual pesticide finds its way into the navigable waters of the United States. Pesticides applied in this way and later affecting the water are necessarily “discarded,” “superfluous,” or “excess” chemical. Such chemical pesticide residuals meet the Clean Water Act’s definition of “chemical waste.”

In the second circumstance, a chemical pesticide is applied directly and purposefully to navigable waters to serve a beneficial purpose—such pesticides are often referred to as “aqueous” or “aquatic” pesticides. As contemplated by the EPA, if residual aquatic pesticide “remain[s] in the water after the application and [the pesticide’s] intended purpose has been completed,” then the residue would likewise qualify as a “chemical waste.” (EPA Br. 29–30.) As such, these chemical wastes would unambiguously fall within the ambit of the Clean Water Act.

National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, 553 F.3d at 936‐37. In other words, aquatic chemical pesticides (those intended for use in the water) can be pollutants if they leave a “residue,” but non‐aquatic terrestrial or aerial pesticides (those which are not intended for use in waters) do not have to leave a “residue” but instead “necessarily” fit the definition of a chemical waste from the moment the non‐aquatic chemical pesticide is discharged. The proposed definition, “…the application of chemical pesticides that leave a residue…” fails to cover this latter subcategory of pesticides.

For the second broad class of pesticides, biological pesticides, the proposed regulatory language may not be sufficiently clear. In particular, the court in National Cotton Council recognized that all biological pesticides are “biological materials” as that term is used in the Clean Water Act, and must therefore be covered by a NPDES permit. The proposed definition employs a comma that separates “the application of biological pesticides,” from “the application of chemical pesticides that leave a residue.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,368/2 (emphasis added). Correctly interpreted, the construction of this sentence should make clear that biological pesticides need not leave a residue to be recognized and permitted as a pollutant. However, in two places in the preamble EPA describes the definition in a way that appears to conflate the two clauses. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,347/1 (stating that the court “found that point source discharges of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue to waters of the United States are pollutants under the CWA,” and stating again that the proposed rule covers “the application of biological pesticides or chemical pesticides that leave a residue”) (emphasis added).

Because the preamble may lead to confusion or misinterpretation, we urge EPA to explicitly clarify this distinction in the final rule by (1) modifying the preamble wording and punctuation to clearly separate “biological pesticides,” from “the application of chemical pesticides that leave a residue,” and (2) adding a narrative explanation of this distinction.

Commenter Name: Carlton R. Layne Commenter Affiliation: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation (AERF) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0412-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

2-20 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

Re: Comments on the EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates

The Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation (AERF) is a non-profit environmental foundation dedicated to the management of invasive and nuisance aquatic plants through the promotion of research, scholarship, regulation based on sound science, and education/outreach which targets regulators, aquatic plant managers, riparian landowners, and water management associations and agencies. The AERF's premier publication, which was referenced in the EPA's NPDES Pesticides General Permit regulations, is the BIOLOGY AND CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS: A Best Management Practices Handbook now in its third edition and available in pdf form on our website at www.aquatics.org.

The AERF does not agree with EPA's characterization of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, 553 F. 3rd. 927 (6th Cir. 2009). The EPA states, in part, "[The Court) found that point source discharges of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue to waters of the United States are pollutants under the CW A and therefore require NPDES permits." The Court actually ruled, in part:

" [lf a] chemical. . . leaves no excess portions after performing its intended function [emphasis added], then that chemical 's use need not be regulated. If on the other hand a chemical pesticide is known to have lasting effects beyond the pesticide's intended object, then its use must be regulated under the CWA."

Contrary to the EPA's statement, the Court clearly did not intend all aquatic applications of chemical and biological pesticides to be regulated under the CWA, per se. Rather, as stated above, only those pesticides which leave a residue beyond the level where the molecule is capable of performing its intended function must be regulated. The EPA Office of Water has apparently chosen to ignore this part of the Court's ruling and has made no effort to determine those values. Instead, the EPA has based its regulatory scheme on the "but for" clause. The Court further stated:

"It is clear that but for [emphasis added] the application of the pesticide, the pesticide residue and excess pesticide would not be added to the water; therefore, the pesticide residue and excess pesticide are from a 'point source'."

The AERF acknowledges that "but for" the application of the pesticides there would be no residue and therefore has no objection to the application equipment being the point source as defined. However, by ignoring the plain language of the 6th Circuit's decision as stated above, the EPA has exceeded its mandate. The data exist in the EPA's Office of Pesticides Programs on each of the registered aquatic biological and chemical pesticide be they used for animal or plant management purposes. The EPA OW has chosen to group all aquatic pesticides in the same group while making no effort at all to determine if the pesticide(s) even leave a residue at all.

2-21 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The AERF recommends that permitted biological and chemical pesticides be limited to EPA registered pesticides and that the Office of Water initiate consultations with the Office of Pesticide Programs to determine first a list of pesticides, the application of which would fall under the scope of a Pesticide General Permit. Secondly, the Office of Water should develop residue thresholds below which the biological and chemical pesticides are incapable of performing their intended function. Those pesticide-specific thresholds would trigger the jurisdiction of the CWA under the NPDES program for those identified pesticides consistent with the 6th Circuit ruling.

Commenter Name: Richard D. Gupton Commenter Affiliation: Agricultural Retailers Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0427-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

EPA should include the 2011 PGP's definition of "Waters of the United States": The draft PGP fails to indicate any legal limit to the reach of the permit's jurisdiction. The draft PGP does not include the 2011 PGP's definition of “Waters of the United States" from the permit language, Appendix A, and the corresponding Fact Sheet. ARA is concerned that a single footnote in the Fact Sheet (providing a link to an EPA web page advertising and promoting its contested 2015 Clean Water Rule (CWR)) serves as the Agency's proposed restatement of legal PGP jurisdiction. Absent the inclusion of the 2011 PGP's definition of what EPA means by "Waters of the United States," the public could interpret the draft PGP requirements to restrict pesticide applications into, over, or near any ditch, dry wash, wetland or other waterbody anywhere in those four states and other included areas, without limitation. Likewise, potential permittees will be left to guess which pesticide applications would require a permit. This lack of clarity could result in litigation and ultimately the courts interpreting EPA's intent.

EPA's apparent intent for the scope of the 2016 PGP's jurisdiction to be defined by the controversial CWR is problematic because the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has imposed a nationwide stay on its' implementation until the pending legal challenges are resolved. The 2011 PGP will expire October 31, 2016, most likely long before litigation over the CWR is resolved. It would be wholly inappropriate for EPA to issue a final five-year PGP authorizing CWA enforcement through federal and third party actions without a clearly defined scope of jurisdiction that is based on current law. As currently proposed, the 2016 PGP is too vague for a commercial applicator to determine what actions would be covered by the permit, and therefore it would not be enforceable. ARA urges EPA to reinsert the definition of "Waters of the U.S." stated in the 2011 PGP throughout the final 2016 PGP, in Appendix A, as well as in the Fact Sheet and on EPA's website.

Commenter Name: Richard D. Gupton Commenter Affiliation: Agricultural Retailers Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0427-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

2-22 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

EPA should provide additional notice and opportunity to comment if CWA jurisdiction changes: ARA assumes that once the 2011 PGP expire, the 2016 PGP will be implemented by EPA. This is likely to take place well before the litigation of the CWR is resolved. If the courts were to uphold the CWR prior to the end of the 2016 PGP five-year cycle, ARA believes EPA should either wait to integrate any new definition of "waters of the U.S." into the PGP until the next five-year ·cycle (2021), or announce the implications of this change to the PGP through another notice and comment period. That would allow any additional permittees newly subject to the PGP to have an opportunity to comment on the revised PGP. Otherwise new permittees may not even be aware that their pesticide application activities could be subject to CWA requirements and could be unknowingly exposed to third part litigation. It would not be appropriate for EPA to change the ground rules for the PGP midway into the five-year cycle.

Commenter Name: Richard D. Gupton Commenter Affiliation: Agricultural Retailers Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0427-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

EPA should resolve the pending Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation with the Services prior to PGP comment period closure: In the Fact Sheet, EPA cautions that consultation with the Services (National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service) is ongoing and changes may be made to requirements of the final PGP as a result of the ongoing consultation. To the extent that the ESA Section 7 consultation results in inclusion of additional PGP requirements, EPA should incorporate such changes to the draft PGP only after publishing a notice of data availability (NODA) and providing the opportunity for additional public comment.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

2-23 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

NPDES Program Definitions Including: Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States, and Whole Effluent Toxicity Definition (40 CFR 122.2)

Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States

The TCEQ recommends that the EPA remove this definition. In 2013 (Docket Number: EPA- HQ-OW-2003-0063), the EPA removed the language that exempted the application of pesticides from NPDES permit requirements. Therefore, adding a definition to the rule will be unnecessary since the defined term is not used within the context of the rule.

Moreover, the pesticide general permit (PGP) is a legal, stand-alone, and enforceable document that complies with NPDES requirements. The terms “discharge”, “pesticide” and “discharge of a pollutant” are defined in the PGP. The rule terminology is inconsistent with the PGP and the 6th Circuit Court decision, both of which define and discuss pesticide discharges and not pesticide applications.

If the EPA proceeds with adding the definition, the TCEQ recommends that the definition be revised to be consistent with the 2009 court decision and the PGP as follows:

“Pesticide discharges to waters of the United States means the discharges of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue in water, from point sources to waters of the United States. In the context of this definition of pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S., this does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture, which are excluded by law (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)).”

Commenter Name: Robert C. Steidel Commenter Affiliation: Department of Public Utilities, City of Richmond Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0017-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Program Definitions

Pesticide Application - The preamble indicates the proposed rule change is to make the definition consistent with the 6th Circuit Decision. If this is the case, shouldn't it also include a clarification that the definition is only applicable to permits in the 6th Circuit. This would be consistent with EPA's position related to the use of flow blending to manage peak wet weather flows and blending only being allowed in the 8th Circuit.

2-24 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the comments and concerns expressed in relation to the definition “pesticide applications to waters of the United States” in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates rulemaking, proposed on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31343). In this final rule, the EPA includes a final definition for “pesticide discharges to waters of the United States from pesticide application” as well as a regulatory definition for “pesticide residue.”

Some comments expressed support of the definition, stating that this would align the definition with current federal law. The EPA agrees that the purpose of the definition was to align with current federal law.

With respect to comments received in opposition to the EPA’s proposal, the Agency acknowledges those comments and has considered them in development of its final rule. See the responses below.

Some comment excerpts included in this issue category pertain to supplementary or introductory information provided by commenters regarding organizational background or information about the benefits and utility of pesticides. These comments do not provide criticisms or suggestions pertaining to elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule and are, therefore, outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Some comments stated that the work done by the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) makes NPDES permits for pesticide discharges redundant or unnecessary. The EPA disagrees. The Sixth Circuit ruled in National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) that NPDES permits are required for discharges to waters of the United States of biological pesticides and of chemical pesticides that leave a residue. The FIFRA and Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements operate independently of each other. FIFRA authorizes the EPA to review and register pesticides for specified uses. The CWA authorizes the EPA to control discharges of pollutants from point sources into waters of the United States. The NPDES pesticides general permit does not override or conflict with existing FIFRA labeling requirements but does have additional requirements for pesticide applications to meet applicable CWA regulatory and statutory requirements, such as meeting technology-based effluent limitations and water quality-based standards.

One comment suggested the EPA develop a list of pesticides that would fall under the scope of the pesticide general permit and that the Agency should establish residue thresholds below which the biological and chemical pesticides are incapable of performing their intended function. This comment does not directly apply to the proposed definition and instead suggests other actions the EPA Office of Water could take to develop residue thresholds and to define the NPDES program jurisdiction over pesticide applications. Because this comment does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to the proposed definition of this rulemaking, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and, therefore, does not require a response.

2-25 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

B. Comments Related to the Definition of “Waters of the United States” or the Pesticide General Permit

Some commenters expressed concern that the Clean Water Rule, which defines Waters of the U.S., is currently being litigated. The definition of Waters of the U.S. and litigation of the Clean Water Rule are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, which simply seeks to update the NPDES regulations regarding what pesticide discharges require NPDES permits as already defined by a Court decision and implemented in EPA’s Pesticide General Permit.

With respect to comments regarding irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater and seeking clarification on agricultural use of pesticides, the EPA acknowledges that irrigation return flow and agricultural stormwater runoff do not require NPDES permits, as exempted from the definition of point source under Section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act. This rulemaking does not change the scope of pesticide application activities to Waters of the United States that require NPDES permit under the CWA, and thus, these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

With respect to the comments that discussed the contents of the then draft 2016 Pesticide General Permit, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not provide criticisms or suggestions pertaining to the definitions in this rulemaking. Therefore, it does not require a response.

C. Comments Discussing the Case, Nat’l Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009)

Some commenters expressed disagreement with the Court decision in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Nat’l Cotton Council”). The court’s decision is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. One commenter asserts that the decision in Nat’l Cotton Council is only applicable to permits in the 6th Circuit. This comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. The definition of “pesticide discharges to waters of the United States from pesticide application” in the final rule applies nationally. This definition is consistent with the applicable 6th Circuit decision in Nat’l Cotton Council and is consistent with terms used in the EPA’s Pesticide General Permit. To the extent the comment relates to blending and peak weather flows, the comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

D. Comments Regarding Seeking Clarification or Making Suggestions to the Proposal

One comment requested that the EPA define “biological pesticides,” “chemical pesticides,” and “pesticide residue” as part of this rule. The EPA acknowledges this comment. As discussed in the preamble, the EPA is not adding a regulatory definition for “biological pesticide” in 40 CFR 122.2 because this concept and relevant regulatory definitions are already included in 40 CFR 174.3, 40 CFR 158.2000(a)(1), and 40 CFR 158.2100(b). Similarly, the EPA is not adding a regulatory definition for “chemical pesticide” because chemical pesticides are all other pesticides not covered under the concept of biological pesticide. The EPA is, however, adding a definition for “pesticide residue.” This definition is identical to the definition of “pesticide residue” already used in the EPA’s Pesticide General Permit and refers to the portion of a pesticide application

2-26 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments that is discharged from a point source to Waters of the U.S. and that no longer provides pesticidal benefits. It also includes any degradants of the pesticide. By defining pesticide residue, the EPA clarifies which discharges of pesticides require an NPDES permit.

Comments both in support of and in opposition to adding the definition suggested that clarification was needed on whether pesticides must leave a residue to require permitting under the NPDES program when discharged to Waters of the U.S. One commenter stated that the EPA must correct its proposed definition to make clear that terrestrial and aerial chemical pesticides need not “leave a residue” in waters to qualify as pollutants and that all biological pesticides are “biological materials,” and unlike chemical pesticides, need not be “wastes” to qualify as pollutants. Another commenter stated that the EPA should correct its proposed definition to make clear that both chemical and biological pesticides must leave a residue to require NPDES permitting. Another commenter stated that the Court decision in Nat’l Cotton Council did not intend all aquatic applications of chemical and biological pesticides to be regulated under the CWA; only those pesticides which leave a residue beyond the level where the molecule is capable of performing its intended function must be regulated. Another commenter stated that the EPA’s proposed definition leaves out the distinction that aquatic chemical pesticides can be pollutants if they leave a “residue,” but non‐aquatic terrestrial or aerial pesticides do not have to leave a “residue” but instead “necessarily” fit the definition of a chemical waste from the moment the non‐aquatic chemical pesticide is discharged. This commenter also stated that the proposed definition is not clear that all biological pesticides are “biological materials” as that term is used in the Clean Water Act, and must, therefore, be covered by a NPDES permit, whether or not they leave a residue. Several comments offered possible changes and alternatives to the EPA’s proposed definition.

In response to the comments received, this final rule includes minor wording changes from the proposal to use NPDES regulatory terminology such as “discharge” and to change “pesticide application” to “discharges to waters of the United States from pesticide application” to better reflect current NPDES terminology, which is used in both the 6th Circuit decision and the EPA’s Pesticide General Permit. This final rule also includes a regulatory definition of the term “pesticide residue” for purposes of clarifying which discharges to Waters of the U.S. from the application of pesticides require NPDES permits. The Court in Nat’l Cotton Council held that the CWA unambiguously includes “biological pesticides” and “chemical pesticides” with residuals within its definition of “pollutant.” Specifically, an application of chemical pesticides that leaves no excess portion or residue is not a discharge of a pollutant, and the applicant need not obtain an NPDES permit. However, chemical pesticide residuals are pollutants as applied, if they are discharged from a point source for which NPDES permits are required. Biological pesticides, on the other hand, are always considered a pollutant under the CWA and require an NPDES permit for all discharges from a point source, regardless of whether the application results in residuals or not. This final rule provides a definition of the term “pesticide discharges to waters of the United States from pesticide application” that includes point source discharges to Waters of the U.S. resulting from the application of biological pesticides or chemical pesticides that leave a residue. The EPA has clarified in the preamble to the final rule that discharges of biological pesticides to waters of the U.S. do not need to leave a residue to require a NPDES permit. For chemical pesticides, an NPDES permit would not be necessary if it is determined that a residual did not enter Waters of the U.S. However, if a chemical pesticide is discharged to Waters of the U.S.,

2-27 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments any excess pesticides or pesticides that no longer provide any pesticidal benefit that remain in those waters are considered “residual.” This definition matches the decision of in Nat’l Cotton Council as well as the EPA’s Pesticide General Permit. The EPA has also added a definition of pesticide residue to further clarify NPDES regulatory requirements related to pesticide application.

2-28 2.b.i - NPDES Program Definition for Pesticide Applications to Waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.b.ii - NPDES Program Definition for Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2) – Reserved The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

2-29 2.b.ii - NPDES Program Definition for Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.b.iii - NPDES Program Definition for New Discharger (40 CFR 122.2) The EPA did not receive any comments related to this topic.

2-30 2.b.iii - NPDES Program Definition for New Discharger (40 CFR 122.2)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.b.iv - NPDES Program Definition for Whole Effluent Toxicity (40 CFR 122.2) – Reserved The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

2-31 2.b.iv - NPDES Program Definition for Whole Effluent Toxicity (40 CFR 122.2) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - General (40 CFR 122.21)

Commenter Name: Kevin Frederick Commenter Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0195-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)- The recent NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule indicated that none of the data being collected was new and that it was already required under existing regulations. A better approach would be for EPA to collaborate with states to ensure that the application updates are consistent with efforts already underway and that additional data needs are truly justifiable.

Commenter Name: Marty Haroldson Commenter Affiliation: North Dakota Department of Health Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0236-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

The Department asks that EPA ensure all facility information in regards to form field updates follow the time lines and accuracy level as prescribed in the Electronic Reporting Rule. This portion of the Rule update seems to be contradictory from the eReporting Rule as it appears to be generating new fields for reporting purposes.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

It should be noted that EPA’s Office of Water is claiming in this proposed rule that "several revisions included in this proposal are necessary in order to ensure the information required by the application forms across the different categories of facilities submitting applications is consistent with EPA’s current data standards and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule." However, the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule indicates that none of the data being collected was new and that it was already required under OW regulations. EPA should provide justification for each additional data field.

2-32 2.c - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - General (40 CFR 122.21)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Recommendation 11: EPA should work with states to finalize some of the updates, ensuring the application updates are consistent with state data collection efforts already ACWA Comments re: Proposed NPDES Updates Rule - Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0145 underway and that a compelling business case can be made for each additional new data field.

Recommendation 12: EPA should ensure timeframes associated with developing or updating application forms are reasonable and not inconsistent with the timeframes articulated in the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.

Commenter Name: Betsy Reilley Commenter Affiliation: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0450-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

Comments on Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

MWRA appreciates that the changes to existing application requirements are of the "housekeeping" nature, and will allow more consistency between this regulation and the NDPES electronic reporting rule. We do not have any objection to providing more detailed location information, or to using an updated system for coding industrial facilities, in future permit applications.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt: the revision of all permit applications will require significant resources, approximately 174 man hours at a one-time cost of 6,960 dollars.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the comments received related to proposed changes to application requirements. The EPA received several comments that were

2-33 2.c - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - General (40 CFR 122.21)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments mixed in terms of support and criticism of the proposed changes. The EPA acknowledges the one comment that was supportive of the changes.

The EPA received multiple comments that were critical of the proposed rule in relation to the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. Multiple comments cited concerns that the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule indicated that no new data elements would be collected and that the EPA should ensure changes made to applications are in line with the Electronic Reporting Rule implementation timeline. In general, the EPA is finalizing minor changes and additions to application requirements, such as adding a field for e-mail addresses in several places in the regulations and on the corresponding application forms. The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule requires NPDES-regulated entities to submit certain information and reports electronically, including discharge monitoring reports, sewage sludge/biosolids annual program reports, and pretreatment program annual reports. Please see 40 CFR 127 for more information. For clarification, the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule did not change permitting requirements, existing NPDES monitoring and reporting requirements, or other substantive requirements. It changed the media of reporting from paper to electronic. The EPA did not, at that time, state that it would never change the information it collects as part of the NPDES program.

The EPA has determined that the changes it is finalizing will improve submission of complete applications and permit timeliness and provide for quicker communications between applicants and permitting authorities. For element-specific responses to comments, please see the applicable response essays under category 2.c. in the Response to Comment document. The EPA also notes that states have one year to make conforming program changes, unless a state must amend or enact a statute to make the revision, in which case such revision shall take place within two years. For more information on time for authorized programs to come into compliance, please see Response to Comments Essay 9.

The EPA received one comment that discussed in a general manner the resources it may require for a state to make changes to its set of application forms to be consistent with the changes made with this final rule. The EPA directs the commenter to Responses to Comments Essay 7, discussing the overall burden of this rulemaking. Additionally, the EPA will help any states that request assistance by providing the revised forms in word processing format to support state efforts in making conforming changes to their application forms and can provide review and comment on revised materials provided by authorized states.

2-34 2.c - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - General (40 CFR 122.21)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.i - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NPDES Contact Information (40 CFR 122.21(a)(2)) The EPA did not receive any comments related to this topic.

2-35 2.c.i - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NPDES Contact Information (40 CFR 122.21(a)(2))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

Commenter Name: Joe Giudice Commenter Affiliation: City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental Programs Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0095-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

EPA should provide a deadline for the transition from SIC to NAICS. This transition should be in agreement with other federal regulations.

Commenter Name: R4 ICIS-NPDES Data Administrator Commenter Affiliation: Region 4 Water Protection Division Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

This rule requires submittal of NAICS code on permit application. Appendix A to part 127 (Electronic Reporting Rule) states that reporting of NAICS code is optional if SIC code is entered.

It makes no sense to require collection of the data field if sharing with EPA is optional. As such, Appendix A to Part 127 needs to be updated also to reflect NAICS as a required data element to share with EPA.

Commenter Name: Heather R. Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: Washington State Department of Ecology Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0159-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes

Ecology supports EPA moving towards requiring NAICS codes for reporting and tracking purposes. However, Ecology believes that the CFR should state that either system is acceptable

2-36 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments and should not require both. Applications should specify which format is required for the application while the CFR should provide flexibility by allowing both options.

Requiring one or the other within the CFR allows for the transition to NAICS codes through the applications without having to revise the CFR to drop the requirements on the application forms for SIC code reporting.

Ecology has at least one application (Sand and Gravel General Permit) where permittees only report the NAICS codes associated with their facilities. Ecology does not want to regress by requiring applicants to report both NAICS and SIC codes.

§122.21(f)(3) Recommended Language: (3) Up to four SIC and or NAICS codes that best reflect the principal products or services provided by the facility.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment Excerpt:

D. EPA Should Clarify the Applicability of NAICS Codes Related to Substantive Regulatory Requirements.

UWAG generally does not oppose EPA’s proposal to include a requirement that applicants provide a facility’s applicable North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) codes on its permit application, in addition to Standard Industry Classification (“SIC”) codes. Id. at 31,350. As EPA acknowledged in post-proposal discussions with UWAG, however, there is not always a direct one-to-one relationship between NAICS and SIC codes for all industries and activities. As such, a direct conversion of SIC codes to NAICS codes is not always feasible. Therefore, the inclusion of both in permit applications may create confusion and conflict, particularly with respect to certain substantive regulations that rely on SIC codes for their applicability. For example, a facility is subject to specific technology based effluent limitation guidelines in 40 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter N only if the facility is categorized under a particular SIC code(s).

In post-proposal discussions, EPA stated that its intent is that when SIC codes are used in EPA regulations, the SIC codes control. UWAG concurs with this position. To ensure that EPA’s intent is reflected in any final rule, and to eliminate any possibility of confusion or conflict, UWAG urges EPA to clarify in the regulation itself and the preamble that the provision requiring NAICS codes is for the sole purpose of EPA data standards and NAICS codes shall not be used in any way to make other regulatory determinations or establish any legal obligations for permittees. UWAG likewise urges EPA to include in the instructions of revised Form 1 similar clarifying language.

2-37 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

The TCEQ does not support some of the specific revisions to minimum NPDES application form requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. Specifically, the requirement to submit latitude/longitude metadata to the nearest second, requirement to submit NAICS codes in addition to SIC codes, the requirement for existing discharges to submit all data from the previous 4.5 years in applications, and the deletion of the term categorical industrial users.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment Excerpt:

The TCEQ is currently in the process of implementing the recently adopted EPA Electronic Reporting Rule requirements, including developing information systems and other tools to implement this rule.

Texas also commented in the Electronic Reporting Rule that requiring both NAICS and SIC codes was redundant and that only one should be required. EPA conceded and allowed either NAICS or SIC codes to be used but not both. Now through this rulemaking, EPA is attempting to add new data elements (longitude and latitude metadata) or change existing data elements (removing the option of using SIC Code). Establishing these requirements under this rulemaking will impact the TCEQ’s ongoing efforts to implement the Electronic Reporting Rule, thus the TCEQ objects to these new application form requirements. The TCEQ recommends that this rule be consistent with the Electronic Reporting Rule regarding latitude, longitude, SIC codes, and NAICS codes.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

2-38 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

While states appreciate the desire for consistency in latitude/longitude resolution, and the need to embrace a modern classification system such as the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), states are concerned with the potential for confusion and inconsistency.

Recommendation 9: EPA should work with states to develop a more strategic, phased-in approach (delayed effective date) for states and the agency to completely move over to NAICS.

Commenter Name: Name Not Provided Commenter Affiliation: Ohio EPA Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0455-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

1. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes 40 CFR 122.21(f)(3): EPA proposes to require NAICS codes in addition to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.

Comment: Requiring two industrial codes will be confusing for industries and permit writers. Ohio recommends waiting until EPA has phased out the use of SIC codes and then requiring NAICS codes only.

Commenter Name: Albert Ettinger Commenter Affiliation: Mississippi River Collaborative Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0456-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

4. Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

2-39 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The Collaborative supports the proposed changes requiring SIC and latitude and longitude information with the understanding that they will facilitate U.S. EPA and delegated state programs to consider NPDES permit applications properly.

Commenter Name: Wade Strickland Commenter Affiliation: State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0474-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Section III; Subparts A, 4, b; Page 31350; Form 1 - North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes

This part of the proposed rule states that EPA will be updating the industrial code classification requirements to include up to four of the facility's NAICS codes in addition to SIC codes, which are being phased out by EPA, for all applicants except publicly owned treatment works and treatment works treating domestic sewage. State of Alaska APDES Regulations, specifically 18 AAC 83.305(b)(3), indicates that up to four NAICS codes that best identify the principal products or services provided by the facility be included with the permittee's application. Since EPA eventually plans to phase out the use of SIC codes and replace them with NAICS codes for NPDES purposes, DEC requests that the final rule be amended to allow for collection of NAICS codes only given SIC codes will become obsolete in the future.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revising the requirements at 40 CFR 122.21(f)(3) for all facilities, except POTWs and treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDSs), to include North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes in addition to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that reflect the products or services provided by the facility. Based on comments received from the public and the federal government’s interagency review through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the EPA is finalizing the revision to require NAICS codes. The EPA will now require applicants to provide up to four SIC codes and up to four NAICS codes that best reflect the principal products provided by the facility.

Some comments suggested that the EPA provide a deadline for the transition from SIC to NAICS or pursue a phased-in or delayed effective approach to transition between codes. Other programs administered by the EPA have transitioned to NAICS codes, including the Toxics Release Inventory program under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

2-40 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permitting program. For the NPDES program, the EPA plans to transition to NAICS codes in the future, but several effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) applicable to non-POTW dischargers still rely on the codification provided by the SIC system. Thus, for regulatory purposes, the SIC code remains a critical piece of information for NPDES permitting purposes while the federal government has generally transitioned to NAICS codes to better track industry statistics. As the transition to NAICS codes for parts of the NPDES regulations that continue to reference SIC codes would need to be carefully considered in the context of those regulations, EPA believes it is inappropriate to set a “deadline” for an SIC to NAICS transition in today’s rulemaking, as EPA did not propose any such requirement.

One comment questioned whether the EPA’s proposal to require applicants to submit NAICS codes was consistent with the Electronic Reporting Rule Appendix A to Part 127, which outlines that reporting of NAICS codes is an optional data element if SIC codes are provided. The comment also suggested that Appendix A to Part 127 be updated to reflect NAICS codes as a required data element. Another comment suggested that the EPA’s proposal would impact ongoing efforts to implement the Electronic Reporting Rule, as the proposed rule would cause a change in the data elements. The EPA acknowledges that SIC codes remain in use in regulatory programs that are critical to determining appropriate NPDES permit limits and conditions, such as effluent guidelines and storm water discharges. The EPA also acknowledges that NAICS codes are the federal government data standard. Therefore, the EPA has decided to finalize the requirement for a non-POTW applicant to submit at least one and up to four SIC codes and at least one and up to four NAICS codes on NPDES applications. The final rule does not cause a change in the required data elements as part of the Electronic Reporting Rule. Therefore, any changes made pursuant to this rule should not impact any ongoing efforts to implement the Electronic Reporting Rule at this time. However, it is true that this new application requirement for NAICS codes is not currently a data sharing requirement pursuant to the Electronic Reporting Rule. Once states take time to revise their application forms and begin to collect NAICS through applications, the EPA may revise the 40 CFR part 127 Appendix A in the future to include NAICS codes as a required data sharing element.

One comment noted that there is not a one-to-one relationship between NAICS and SIC codes; thus, the EPA’s proposal could create confusion for applicants and conflict where certain requirements are determined based on SIC codes. This comment also suggests that the EPA make clear in the final rule and preamble, as well as in the Form 1 application instructions, that NAICS codes shall not be used in any way to make other regulatory determinations or establish any legal obligations for permittees. Other comments suggested generally that the EPA’s proposal created the potential for confusion and inconsistency. The EPA acknowledges that although SIC and NAICS codes both aim to classify facilities based on their principal products provided, there is not, in all cases, a code-to-code correlation between NAICS and SIC. Additionally, while NAICS and SIC codes both provide useful information, SIC codes are a critical piece of information needed for NPDES permitting purposes. SIC codes remain in use in the Agency’s regulatory programs that are critical to determining appropriate NPDES permit limits and conditions, such as effluent guidelines and storm water discharges. Meanwhile, NAICS codes are the recommended industry classification system in the OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 8 and represent the federal government’s data standard. The NAICS system

2-41 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments has effectively replaced the SIC system which has not been updated since 1987, so NAICS codes also should begin to be collected for the federal government’s various data management and tracking purposes. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for an applicant to submit NAICS codes in addition to SIC codes on application forms. At this time, SIC codes must be provided for NPDES permitting regulatory purposes, while NAICS codes are to be provided to accommodate the federal government’s data standards requirements. Given this, resources are provided in the Form 1 instructions on identifying a discharger’s SIC and NAICS codes. A resource that provides the correlation between SIC and NAICS codes is included in the docket of the final rule and is also available through the U.S. Census Bureau at https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/concordances/concordances.html.

One comment supported the EPA’s proposal and suggested that the regulation should provide flexibility to provide either code but not require both. This comment also recognized a permittee category that currently only provides NAICS codes. Another comment opposed the EPA’s proposal because requiring both NAICS and SIC codes would be redundant, and the comment recommended that the EPA require only one code to be reported. One comment supported only requiring NAICS codes and removing the requirement for SIC codes entirely. The EPA’s intent with the proposed rule was to require both SIC and NAICS codes, as both codes provide useful information. SIC codes are a critical piece of information needed for NPDES permitting purposes. The EPA acknowledges that SIC codes remain in use in regulatory programs that are critical to determining appropriate NPDES permit limits and conditions, such as effluent guidelines and storm water discharges. Therefore, at this time, the EPA does not support the removal of SIC codes from the list of data elements collected on application forms. In conjunction, NAICS codes represent the federal government data standard, so they should also begin to be collected for the federal government’s various data management and tracking purposes pursuant to the OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 8. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for an applicant to submit NAICS codes in addition to SIC codes on application forms.

B. Other

One comment expressed general opposition to proposed revisions to the requirement to submit latitude/longitude metadata to the nearest second, the requirement for existing discharges to submit all data from the previous 4.5 years in applications, and the deletion of the term categorical industrial users. Other comments expressed support and appreciation of the desire for consistency in latitude/longitude resolution.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to Latitude and Longitude requirements (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii)). The EPA received numerous comment on this topic, which require additional time to analyze. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

2-42 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the comment on the proposed revision to data age for permit renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)), see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 2.c.v as well as the preamble to the final rule.

Regarding the comment on the proposed revision to reporting numbers of significant industrial users (SIUs) and non-significant categorical industrial users (NSCIUs) in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i) and (ii), see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 2.c.vii as well as the preamble to the final rule.

2-43 2.c.ii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - NAICS Codes (40 CFR 122.21(f)(3))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.iii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21) – Reserved The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

2-44 2.c.iii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

Commenter Name: Kris Sigford Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0080-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

MCEA also supports EPA’s proposal to decrease from 2 years to 18 months the time allotted for new sources and new dischargers to provide effluent data following commencement of the discharge. Of course, regular discharge monitoring data reporting via DMRs must continue to begin at the commencement of discharge.

Commenter Name: Jonathan Downing Commenter Affiliation: Wyoming Mining Associaton (WMA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0094-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

WMA believes that the time frame to submit new effluent data should remain 24 months. EPA is proposing to reduce the time frame to 18 months however no documentation has been provided in the preamble to show the need for this change.

Commenter Name: Ed Thomas Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0167-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

TFI Opposes The Reduction in Time for Submitting New Discharge Data in EPA’s Changes to Existing Application Requirements 2016 NPDES Revisions – Two (2) Years are Needed to Ensure Accurate Data is Available

EPA has proposed changing the length of time given to a new discharger to submit effluent information under 40 CFR 122(j) and 40 CFR 122(k). A reduction in time from two years to 18 months has been proposed.

2-45 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

TFI members build or renovate wastewater treatment systems routinely. Most, if not all, treatment facilities require adjustments, additional treatment trains, or modifications to meet discharge requirements. In addition those processes requiring physical, chemical, and biological treatment usually need to be operationally adjusted to reach peak treatment efficiency over long periods of time. TFI suggests that the shortened time to submit discharge monitoring data will skew the treatment facility’s true discharge loadings. EPA has assumed in the rule preamble that the plant will be optimized in 3 months after start up. However, many discharge systems are rainfall dependent and don’t continuously discharge. This can cause delays in making adjustments as well as require more time to establish complete data records. For these reasons, TFI strongly opposes a reduction in the time frame.

Commenter Name: Roger Claff, P.E. Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0180-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

EPA's Proposed Narrowing of the Timeframe for New Dischargers to Submit Effluent Data is Not Justified in the Proposed Rule

In the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes to narrow from 24 months to 18 months the timeframe for new dischargers to submit actual effluent data to confirm or rebut the estimates in their permit applications. EPA does not provide a rationale for this change, other than to assert 18 months is "timely" for the state regulatory authority, and affords the regulated facility 3 months to gain efficient operation of the treatment system, a full year to collect data, and an additional 3 months to submit the data to the regulatory authority. EPA does not clarify in the Proposed Rule the reasoning behind the prior 24- month timeframe, nor what has recently changed to justify a narrowing of this timeframe by 6 months. Nor has EPA justified its presumption of3 months to gain efficient operation of the treatment system; this timeframe mayor may not be realistic depending on the wastewater, the nature of the treatment system, and any treatment system upgrades identified upon start-up. The 24-month timeframe provided new dischargers with an additional 6 months of flexibility to ensure optimal treatment system performance and to collect data. The timeframe should not be changed.

Commenter Name: Frederic P. Andes Commenter Affiliation: Federal Water Quality Coalition Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0182-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

2-46 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

DATA SUBMITTAL DEADLINE FOR NEW DISCHARGERS: The new deadline of 18 months for new dischargers to submit data has not been justified. The current deadline of 2 years should be retained, for both municipal and industrial dischargers.

Under the current NPDES rules, new industrial dischargers are given two years after commencement of the discharge to submit effluent data. For municipal dischargers, there is no specified timeframe. In the Proposal, EPA specifies a timeline of 18 months for both of these groups to submit their effluent data. We do not disagree with the notion that the deadlines for both discharger groups should be consistent, but we see no valid reason for EPA to change that deadline from 2 years, as it is currently, to 18 months. For new dischargers, it can take time, after commissioning and start-up, for the operations to move into a steady-state situation, in which representative data can be collected. Then, the discharger would need to collect sufficient effluent data, considering seasonal variations. That entire process could certainly take more than 18 months to complete.

EPA indicates in the preamble that 18 months "would provide a reasonable time period." But the Agency says nothing about its prior choice of 2 years, and does not explain why it is reversing its previous view that 2 years was the appropriate timeline. EPA also improperly minimizes the impact of the change, stating that the new timeline would "impose no new burden." Of course, there is a new burden; the discharger has to prepare and submit the effluent data 6 months earlier than under the current rules. Unless and until EPA can justify that new requirement and explain why the current requirement is improper, it should retain the 2-year deadline in the current rules, and apply it to all new dischargers.

Commenter Name: Nina Bell Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

We strongly support the proposed changes to the rules pertaining to the submission of effluent information. POTWs are significant pollution sources and the current omission of a timeframe should be fixed. The 18-month timeframe should provide a better chance that permit writers will be working with current information. Similarly we agree with EPA that summarizing the data from the previous permit term is important for non-POTW dischargers.

Commenter Name: Joseph P. Lapcevic Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0238-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

2-47 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

New Source Data Reporting Requirements

EPA proposes on pages 31350 and 31351 to reduce the reporting requirements for new sources from 24 months to 18 months. Specifically, EPA's schedule is to allow for three months of startup, 12 months of sampling and three months for report compilation and submittal. The Agency's expectation that facilities can startup in three months is not necessarily true. Under the published Steam Electric ELGs, EPA stated on page 67,883, "EPA's record demonstrates that plants installing the FGD technology basis spent several months optimizing its operation (initial commissioning period). Without allowing additional time for optimization, the plant would likely not be able to meet the limitations because they are based on the operation of optimized systems." In addition to the ELGs, EPA regularly provides for at least a six month startup period, such as under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration rules. FirstEnergy believes that the 24 month reporting requirements is more appropriate and would allow for better data analysis. Should data monitoring begin after only three months, several early data points may be skewed due to startup conditions and inappropriately affect the twelve months of analysis. Conclusion

Commenter Name: Brenna Mannion Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0240-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

This section also includes a proposed change to the application for new municipal dischargers allowing the permit authority to collect data 18 months after commencement of discharge. NACWA opposes this change -- the current 24-month deadline is the most appropriate time frame because it provides a more complete data set over two full annual cycles. Two years allows the permitting authority a better representation of effluent water quality variability and allows comparison of water quality and flow conditions across two complete years, thus accounting for seasonal abnormalities.

Commenter Name: Martha K. Landwehr Commenter Affiliation: Texas Chemical Council (TCC) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0256-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

• Change in Data Submittal Deadline for New Dischargers. EPA is proposing to shorten the deadline for new industrial permittees to submit initial effluent data from 2

2-48 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

years to 18 months.[1] However, EPA fails to put forth any reasoning for this modification in the proposed rule. The only reference to the time frame is by noting that 18 months represents “a reasonable time period.”[2] However, EPA makes no reference to the previously required 2 year deadline for industrial dischargers, and again states that this will not impose any new burden on industrial dischargers, which is clearly incorrect. A discharger will now have to prepare and put forth its effluent data 6 months faster than the current rules require. EPA has specifically solicited feedback on whether “18 months is an adequate period of time for new dischargers to submit effluent data.”[3] TCC contends that the change is unnecessary and new dischargers should continue to be required to submit initial effluent data no later than 2 years after the commencement of discharge, absent any justification by EPA to compress the timeframe. Therefore, EPA should either withdraw this proposal or provide an adequate, and justifiable, basis for the revision.

[1] 81 Fed. Reg. at 31351.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

Commenter Name: David L. Smiga Commenter Affiliation: United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0408-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

• The new deadline of 18 months for new dischargers to submit data has not been justified. The current deadline of 2 years should be retained, for both municipal and industrial dischargers

Commenter Name: Tracey Maloney Commenter Affiliation: Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0410-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

2-49 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Data Submission Deadline: “Under the current NPDES rules, new industrial dischargers are given two years after commencement of the discharge to submit effluent data. For municipal dischargers, there is no specified timeframe. In the Proposal, EPA specifies a timeline of 18 months for both of these groups to submit their effluent data. We do not disagree with the notion that the deadlines for both discharger groups should be consistent, but we see no valid reason for EPA to change that deadline from 2 years, as it is currently, to 18 months.”

Commenter Name: Jennifer C. Chavez Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0411-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment Excerpt:

C. Time for new dischargers to submit effluent information

We support the intention behind the proposal to reduce the time by which new dischargers must submit effluent monitoring data, but urge EPA to further reduce the time from 18 months to 16 months. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,350‐51. EPA’s proposed 18‐month period assumes that new facilities will need three months to ensure the facility is operating efficiently, 12 months to gather the effluent data, and another three months to submit the data. Id. at 31,351/1. This last 3‐ month period is needlessly protracted. Our proposed alternative still allows the facility an entire month to submit data that should have been collected by the 15 month point, and this is sufficient.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment Excerpt:

F. EPA Should Not Change the New Discharger Data Submission Requirements.

EPA proposes to change the requirement to submit Form 2C items V and VI for new discharges from two years to eighteen months. Id. at 31,350-51. EPA does not provide any justification for this change or suggest that its current requirement is insufficient. Instead, without explanation, EPA simply states that it is EPA’s view that “18 months would provide a reasonable time period” to collect and submit the required data. Id.41 UWAG disagrees and believes, based on its members’ extensive experience, that eighteen months is not enough time.

It is UWAG members’ experience that there are too many operational and seasonal variables that can preclude the ability to generate the required data within eighteen months, while at the same

2-50 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments time ensuring that the data are consistent with data quality requirements and are representative. For example, startup dates can be delayed, or there can be startups and shut downs as new facilities come online. Additionally, outfalls may begin to discharge at different times for numerous reasons, or may start and stop discharging based on the varied operations of a new facility. These and other reasons can impede the ability to obtain the needed data. New facilities need the flexibility and time to be able to produce a quality and representative set of data that meets EPA’s requirements. Arbitrarily narrowing the window for new dischargers to meet its requirements will serve only to produce rushed, potentially inaccurate or incomplete data or to potentially put new dischargers in a position of non-compliance. UWAG urges EPA to provide new dischargers enough time to do the job correctly and not to proceed with this proposed change.

41 EPA says the change will provide it access to data sooner, but that, of course, is obvious. What is missing is why EPA believes the time frame is reasonable and why EPA access to this information sooner is necessary. For example, EPA has not stated that estimated discharges from new dischargers have proven inconsistent with later confirmed actual discharges or that water quality was not adequately protected under effluent limitations based on estimated discharges.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

States agree with EPA that as the NPDES program has evolved, many existing application requirements and associated forms have become outdated with respect to current program practices. In particular, most states support the proposed updates to this section including the request for electronic mailing addresses, establishing an eighteen-month timeframe for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and non-POTWs to submit effluent information, increasing data age for permit renewal to 4.5 years, cooling water intake structure data, and the request for variance indicators.

2-51 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Recommendation 8: EPA should clarify whether the start of the eighteen-month timeframe for POTW and non-POTWs to submit effluent information as beginning at the "commencement of discharge" in all locations.

Commenter Name: Jack C. Bender Commenter Affiliation: Utility Information Exchange of Kentucky Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0444-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

Application Requirements for new sources and new dischargers- 40 CFR 122.21(k)

Under 40 CFR 122.21(k) new discharges would be required to submit Form 2C of the application to include monitoring data on the discharge within 18 months after commencement of the discharge. Currently, new dischargers are required to provide the information 24 months after the commencement of the discharge. No justification is provided for shortening the period by 6 months. Start-up considerations can generally affect the discharge for many months and the more accurate picture of the long term discharge quality is better represented by a 24 month period following start-up. Accordingly, UIEK opposes this change since no justification is given for the shorter time frame and the current 2-year period would provide more representative data.

Commenter Name: Albert Ettinger Commenter Affiliation: Mississippi River Collaborative Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0456-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

The Collaborative believes that new dischargers should be expected to submit effluent information as soon as possible, certainly by no more than 18 months after discharges commence. Of course, discharge monitoring reports should be submitted immediately after discharges begin.

Commenter Name: Robert C. Steidel Commenter Affiliation: Department of Public Utilities, City of Richmond Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0017-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

2-52 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Permit Application Requirements

This section included a proposed change to the application for new dischargers in order to collect data 18 months after commencement of discharge. Given these data will be submitted after the permit has been issued, this requirement should be in section 122.44 and included as a permit condition. Placing the requirement in 122.44(d) will make implementation more straightforward. This requirement is similar to the requirement to submit local limits evaluations (122.440)) as a permit provision and not as part of the application.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to update the NPDES permit application requirements to revise the length of time provided to new dischargers to submit actual effluent characterization data that replaces estimated effluent characteristics once discharge commences. Under the proposed rule, new dischargers would have been required to submit actual effluent data within 18 months of the commencement of discharge. For POTWs, the proposed rule represented the first time a timeframe was specified. For non-POTWs, the timeframe was a proposed change from two years to eighteen months.

The EPA received four sets of comments from one state entity and three environmental groups offering general support for the provision without specific comments. The EPA also received several comments voicing opposition to the proposed revision. Please see Section B for the appropriate responses to those comments.

B. Responses to Comments on the Eighteen-Month Timeframe

The EPA received several comments objecting to the Agency’s proposal to shorten, from two years to eighteen months, the length of time for new industrial dischargers (non-POTWs) to submit actual effluent characterization data after commencement of discharge. Most of the comments, many of which were submitted by industry members with on-the-ground experience with start-up and sampling processes, expressed the view that a two-year or twenty-four-month timeframe better allows a facility to optimize its operation and to gather and report representative data. Comments also argued that the longer period provides a better representation of effluent quality variation. Many of the comments pointed out that the EPA provided little justification for shortening the timeframe from two years to eighteen months and argued that twenty-four months better accommodated the time needed for treatment system optimization. One commenter cited a recent EPA rulemaking that suggested facility operations could take several months to be optimized.[1],[2] In addition, the EPA received one comment stating that the Agency should shorten the timeframe from the proposed eighteen months to sixteen months.

The EPA agrees that it did not provide a strong basis for the proposal to reduce the timeframe from two years to eighteen months, and the Agency is convinced by the commenters who, based

2-53 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments on actual experience in the field, argued for no change to the twenty-four-month period because, among other things, it provides a necessary cushion to address the variety of issues that can occur during start-up and will help to ensure that the data the Agency receives after start-up reflects actual operating conditions. The EPA has therefore decided to retain the current twenty- four-month time-period for industrial dischargers and finalize the same twenty-four-month time period for new POTW dischargers.

Regarding the comment arguing for a sixteen-month period because, in its view, data reporting should only take one month rather than the three the Agency allotted to it in the proposal, the commenter provided no basis for its assertion. The Agency, therefore, has not adjusted the required timeframe to reflect less time for data reporting. In addition, one commenter appeared to argue for an “as soon as possible” standard, which the Agency did not adopt as it would not be a clear enough target for implementation purposes.

C. Consistent Timeframes for POTWs and Non-POTWs

Several comments indicated support for consistent timeframes for all new dischargers, both POTWs and non-POTWs. The EPA notes this support and has determined to retain the twenty- four-month timeframe for new non-POTWs and finalize the twenty-four-month timeframe for new POTWs.

D. Other

With respect to comments on other topics that were included with comment excerpts on this subject, such as reporting electronic mailing addresses, data age for permit renewal, cooling water intake structure indications, and variance indications on applications, please refer to response to comment essays 2.c.vi, 2.c.v., 2.c.viii, and 2.c.ix, respectively. One comment addressed DMR reports, which are outside the scope of the proposed rule.

One comment indicated that the best place for new discharger data submission after a permit has been issued would be as part of 122.44(d) as a permit condition. EPA has not made this change, as requirements for new dischargers to submit actual data after the commencement of discharge would not fit within the scope of 122.44(d), water quality standards and state requirements and addressing new discharger data under that provision would be confusing.

[1] Excerpt from comment received from Joseph P. Lapcevic, First Energy Corp.: “Under the published Steam Electric ELGs, EPA stated on page 67,883, "EPA's record demonstrates that plants installing the FGD technology basis spent several months optimizing its operation (initial commissioning period).”

[2] 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. 80 FR 67837 at 67883, Nov. 4, 2015.

2-54 2.c.iv - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - New Discharger Data Submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

Commenter Name: Karen Larsen Commenter Affiliation: California Water Boards Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0078-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

2. 40 CFR section 122.21(g)(7)

Comments Water Board staff use more than one year of data to conduct reasonable potential analyses. Valid data should not be excluded from the dataset used for reasonable potential analyses. We recommend deleting the last sentence in the proposed regulation.

Suggested Changes to Proposed Regulation 122.21 (g)(7). Existing data may be used, if available, in lieu of sampling done solely for the purpose of this application. All existing data for pollutants specified in paragraphs (g)(7)(i) through (viii) of this section that is collected within four and one-half years of the application must be included in the pollutant data summary submitted by the applicant. If, however, the applicant samples for a specific pollutant on a monthly or more frequent basis, it is only necessary, for such pollutant, to summarize all data collected within one year of the application.

Commenter Name: Rick Clifton Commenter Affiliation: Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0161-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

EPA Should Not Amend Section 122.21 (g)(7) to Add a New Paragraph (ix) Regarding Data Requirements in Permit Applications.

EPA proposes to amend §122.21 (g)(7) to add a new requirement (ix), to "require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years."6 The Authority contends that EPA should not amend § 122.21 (g)(7) as the new requirements in paragraph (ix) are unnecessarily burdensome.

Supporting Comment:

2-55 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Each permitting authority, including each delegated State, should have flexibility to determine data requirements that the permitting authority finds most useful and representative as it reviews applications for which it issues permits. The proposed federal regulation would substitute minimum federal requirements for cost effective and representative data requirements that States have already established, regardless of how well existing State requirements are working. The proposed federal regulation would add an additional cost burden to regulated parties that must submit additional data in applications. The required additional cost will provide no environmental benefit, because the required data is already publicly available online.

Further, in a State such as Texas that has a basin permitting rule, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality often issues Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permits for terms shorter than five years in an effort to adjust a permit to the basin schedule. If applicants are required to submit four and one half years of data in every application, sometimes applicants would be submitting data collected during the term of a preceding permit (i.e., that is not the current permit) causing considerable confusion to the permit writer. The permitting authority is in the best position to know what data is reasonable, cost effective and representative within its jurisdiction, and the permitting authority, whether it is EPA or a State, should be allowed to determine the number of data points required in the application.

6 81 Fed. Reg. at 3 1,35 1.

Commenter Name: Peter Goodman Commenter Affiliation: Commonwealth of Kentucky Division of Water Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0172-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

The Division requests that EPA clarify the disparity in the required time period(s) regarding data required in an application for the following: application requirements for existing manufacturing, commercial mining, and silvicultural dischargers § 122.2l(g)(7)(ix) states: "All existing data for pollutants [ ... ] that is collected within four and one-half years of the application must be included in the pollutant data summary submitted by the applicant. If, however, the applicant samples for a specific pollutant on a monthly or more frequent basis, it is only necessary, for such pollutant, to summarize all data collected within one year of the application. "26

26 81 FR 31369.

2-56 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Roger Claff, P.E. Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0180-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

EPA's Proposed Requirement to Submit 4 1/2 Years of Effluent Data at Permit Renewal is Not Justified in the Proposed Rule

In the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes to expand the required effluent data submission at permit renewal to all effluent data over the past 4 1/2 years rather than 3 years. EPA's reasoning is that the typical permit term is 5 years, so 4 1/2 years of effluent data essentially spans the entire term. But EPA does not provide the reasoning behind the prior 3-year requirement, nor does EPA explain what recent changes or concerns have precipitated this need for additional data. The extension to 4 1/2 years is not consistent with the permit application recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 122.21(p), which is not changed by the Proposed Rule and specifies three years. Three years should be sufficient to establish recent trends in effluent concentrations and loadings, and to obtain a clear record of facility compliance with its current permit. Conditions, including effluent compositions and treatment system performance, change over time and earlier data are more likely to be misleading and inaccurate. The prior requirement to submit 3 years of effluent data is sufficient for trend analysis, more accurate, and should not be changed.

Commenter Name: Andrew C. Brought Commenter Affiliation: SpencerFane LLP Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0242-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Comment No.3- Proposed Revision to 40 CFR 122.21 to Codify New Data Submittal Requirements for Permit Renewal Applications

EPA proposes adding a new paragraph (g)(7)(ix) to 40 CFR § 122.21 that will require, among other obligations, new data submittal requirements for facilities submitting permit renewal applications. EPA is proposing two different data submittal requirements; the applicability of each depends on how frequently the facility samples its outfalls for each pollutant. If the facility monitors monthly or more frequently, the facility must include 12 months of sampling data in the facility's permit renewal application. If the facility samples for a pollutant less frequently than monthly, the facility must include all data collected during the previous 4½-year time period.

There are several flaws with each of the proposed new data submittal requirements that warrant EPA's revision and correction.

2-57 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

There are substantial logistical problems with the proposed 12-month data submittal requirements for frequently sampled pollutants. It will be extremely burdensome for a facility to include sampling data results in the facility's permit application from data that was collected days before the facility submits its permit renewal application. For instance, as currently proposed, the facility would be required to include sampling data generated just one day before the permit application is due. Requiring the inclusion of data collected just days before an application is submitted completely ignores the significant amount of time required to obtain data from a testing laboratory, share data with staff and/or environmental consultants, QA/QC review data, tabulate data, compile data (e.g., generate averages, identify maximums, convert concentration values to mass, etc.), entry of data onto permit application forms, finalize the entire permit renewal application submittal and obtain the signature of a responsible corporate officer. As a practical matter, facilities need to draw a line at some point in time before an application submittal deadline and stop including any data in a permit renewal application after this point in time. A possible reasonable time to stop including new data is two months before the facility's deadline to submit their permit renewal application. The proposed 365-day data requirement is not trivial as failure to include all data, including data generated days before the facility's submittal of its permit renewal application, could result in the facility's loss of administrative continuance protection should the facility's new wastewater permit not be issued before the facility's current permit expires. Without administrative continuance, the facility would be forced to either stop all wastewater discharges (i.e., shut down) or continue to operate and discharge wastewater without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. Another problem with the proposed 12-month data submittal requirement for frequently sampled pollutants is that it prevents facilities from submitting permit renewal applications sooner than 180 days before a facility's current wastewater permit expires. This is because if a facility submits its permit renewal application a month before the regulatory deadline, and then generates effluent data after the application is submitted, the facility will be in violation of proposed new 40 CFR § 122.21(g)(7)(ix) as the facility's application does not contain "all data collected within one year" of the application submittal deadline. The proposed 4½-year data time period for less than monthly generated data should not be adopted as proposed because it is too prescriptive and does not allow facilities enough time to include recently collected data in permit renewal application forms. The 4½-year time period is not flexible enough to accommodate real-world instances where it is not appropriate or necessary for a facility seeking to renew a wastewater permit to include 4½ years of pollutant data for a number of reasons. Some facility data might be too old to be representative to warrant the data's inclusion in the facility's permit renewal application for a number of reasons. For instance, the facility's current permit might have a term less than five years, such as two years or three years. Likewise, a facility's current permit might include a schedule of compliance to install new treatment equipment or meet new permit limits several years after a permit's issuance. In both of these instances, it would not be appropriate for the facility to include old data that is not representative of the facility's recent discharge. The proposed ridged wording of the 4½-year time period should be revised to allow permitting authorities the flexibility to impose shorter time periods (e.g., 2 years, 3 years), on a case-by-case basis, for certain facility pollutants collected by facilities less frequently than monthly.

Another problem with the proposed 12-month and 4½-year data requirements is that it requires a facility to include "all existing data" from the respective time periods in the permit renewal application. By codifying this requirement in this manner, a facility will face potential loss of

2-58 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments important permit administrative continuance protection if just one set of available data is missing, even if by a mistake, from the permit application, regardless of the significance of the data or its relevance on the missing data's contribution (or lack thereof) to the regulatory agency's development of a new permit for the facility. Stated alternatively, the failure to include all existing data, even if such data is irrelevant, would cause the facility to lose administrative continuance protection should the facility's new wastewater permit not be issued before the facility's current permit expires. Therefore, the proposed wording that "all ... must be included in the data summary submitted by the applicant" should be revised to include statements that accidental omission of data or failure to include duplicative or incidental data would not be a violation of this requirement.

Commenter Name: Bill Matthews Commenter Affiliation: Cleo Corporation Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0252-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

Comment 9.

Required Amount of Effluent Data in Applications Should Match Record Keeping Requirements

EPA proposes to change the requirement to provide past effluent data during permit renewal applications from the three previous years of data to the previous four and one-half years of data. (at 122.21(g)(7)(IX) of the Proposal) EPA doesn't indicate why agency permit writers need this additional data. The proposed requirement is inconsistent with EPA's record keeping requirements, which only require operators keep such information for 3 years. EPA should not create inconsistent record keeping and submission requirements, particularly when EPA has not provided any reason why its current data requirements are not sufficient.

Commenter Name: Martha K. Landwehr Commenter Affiliation: Texas Chemical Council (TCC) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0256-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

Change in Age of Effluent Data for Permit Renewal. EPA is further proposing to add a new 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix) to require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years for non-POTW facilities.[1] EPA explains that they would prefer that the requirements for non-POTW dischargers to be consistent with the requirements for POTW dischargers. However, this new requirement is unduly burdensome on industrial dischargers and not justified in the

2-59 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments proposal. To provide this type of data, especially in cases where an industrial discharger is applying for a straight renewal and only changing

• the expiration date of the permit, for instance, this would add an unnecessary burden on the permittee by requiring the permittee to look back to data that has already been evaluated in the previous permit term, and that may not be applicable to the current permit situation where certain technological upgrades or operational changes may have since occurred at the facility. Furthermore, this requirement will impose additional burdens on the state permitting agency, clearly not increasing efficiencies, which is the ultimate aim of EPA’s proposal to designate administratively continued permits as “proposed permits.” TCC asks that EPA remove this requirement with respect to non- POTW dischargers.

[1] 81 Fed. Reg. 31351

Commenter Name: Julie Nahrgang Commenter Affiliation: Water Environment Association of Texas (WEAT), Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies (TACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0259-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

Effluent Data (40 CFR § 122.21(g)(7)(ix))

By requiring up to four and one half years of effluent data from the applicant, this proposed rule would be duplicative and create an increased burden for applicants and potentially require applicants to submit irrelevant data, all of which reinforce the general concern that the proposed rule changes would be unduly burdensome for applicants.

Four and a half years of data for each of the specified pollutants is a voluminous amount of data that must be compiled and produced as part of an already tedious application process. Thus, contrary to the preamble’s description, this proposed rule change would vastly increase the quantity of data required from applicants. This amount of data is unnecessary, especially if the application is a renewal, because effluent trends would most likely be maintained, the confirmation of which does not require such vast data to determine. Furthermore, such dated information may be of little or no value in the renewal process because the data may not always be reflective of current conditions. For instance, an applicant could have upgraded its treatment system during that time period, which would result in vastly different effluent data than the older data reflects. As such, the data would be irrelevant for purposes of a renewal as it is not indicative of the applicant’s current capacity to meet standards.

2-60 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Moreover, TCEQ already collects and maintains a database of effluent data that applications would be required to submit under this proposed rule through its “e-reporting” requirements. Thus, not only would applicants be required to meet the regular reporting requirements, they would also be required to submit the same information to the same entity arguably, in part, for the same purpose. To mandate applicants resubmit information the permitting authority already has at its disposal is duplicative, inefficient, requires applicants to double their efforts unnecessarily, and results in TCEQ staff having to navigate, once again, large amounts of the same data.

Therefore, we recommend not adding this provision and instead maintaining the status quo. As such, each state with delegated NPDES permitting authority would determine the appropriate amount of data. If more data is necessary, the permitting authority could always request that information from individual applicants, but such a decision should be made on an as-needed basis rather than imposing inefficient and burdensome practices on all applicants. This way, only necessary data is collected, the data is an accurate representation of current conditions, and the permitting authority has the flexibility to obtain the data it needs while applicants are not subjected to undue burdens. To the extent that other states do not already collect data as Texas does, we suggest that the solution is for EPA to work with those specific states to determine the best approach for it to obtain the data it needs rather than to mandate duplicative efforts for those states like Texas that collect such data already.

Commenter Name: David L. Smiga Commenter Affiliation: United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0408-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment Excerpt:

Issue: EPA's proposal to revise the application Form 2C instructions and include a new paragraph in the regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix) to require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years for non-POTW facilities is not compatible with current record retention regulations.

Comment:

EPA is proposing to require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years for non-POTW facilities. As the proposal states, "the 4.5 year requirement [ ... J was established to ensure the permittee summarizes all the data collected during its existing five-year permit term with consideration that the application would be submitted six months prior to the end of the permit term (i.e., 4.5 years). It is EPA's view that summarizing the data from the previous permit term is equally as important for non-POTW dischargers. Accordingly, EPA proposes to revise the application Form 2C instructions as well as to include a new paragraph 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix) in the regulations to require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years. These revisions would not alter the type or quantity of information required from a discharger, and impose no new burden."

2-61 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

U. S. Steel does not oppose providing all data collected during the current permit term; however, a 4.5 year timeframe would be outside of the scope of currently required records retention. In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41G)(2), the permittee is only required to retain records of monitoring information for a period of 3 years from the date of sample, measurement, report or application, except in certain circumstances.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment Excerpt:

G. EPA Should Reject its Proposed Data Age Requirements for Permit Renewals or Provide Clarification Regarding Their Application and Consistency with Record Keeping Requirements.

EPA proposes to change the requirement to provide old effluent data during permit renewal applications from the three (3) previous years to the previous four and one-half (4.5) years of the application.42 Id. at 31,351, 31,369.43 EPA does not provide any explanation for this change except to say that POTWs currently are required to provide 4.5 years of data and that “summarizing the data from the previous permit term is equally as important for non-POTW dischargers.” Id. at 31,351. While this may have been a legitimate justification when EPA first created the 4.5-year requirement for POTWs, many years have gone by since then; EPA provides no explanation that permitting authorities need more data or information to inform their decisions. Further, EPA has long treated POTWs and non-POTWs differently, presumably for good reason, and a change simply to make requirements consistent seems arbitrary.44 In any event, with the advent of electronic reporting (including the requirements of EPA’s electronic reporting beginning later this year), this requirement seems particularly unnecessary (and duplicative) as EPA and states have (or will soon have) all such data electronically and available immediately. UWAG urges EPA to reconsider its historical data submission requirements in general in light of its recently changed electronic reporting requirements. UWAG sees an opportunity for EPA to eliminate part of the information collection burden created by the NPDES program. 45

Substantively, EPA’s changes to the regulations and Form 2C are confusing. Currently, EPA requires that representative data be provided and that such data be from within the past three years. These requirements, presumably, are so that EPA can obtain fresh data that is most representative of present or future discharges. In the proposal, while EPA keeps the term representative in some parts of Form 2C, it does not do so with respect to the historical data at issue. Instead, EPA appears to favor a larger volume of information over the most accurate information. In addition, the proposed change to provide 4.5 years’ worth of data does not consider that historical data may not be representative of present or future discharges. For example, changes in wastewater treatment technologies in recently promulgated effluent

2-62 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments limitations guidelines since the last permit may change the characteristics of the effluent discharges. UWAG urges EPA to reconsider this proposal and instead focus on obtaining data that is most representative of the to-be-permitted discharges.

This requirement also raises issues regarding permittees’ ability to timely submit complete renewal applications. While some of these issues may have existed previously, EPA could use this opportunity to provide clarification. For example, under the proposal, assuming an application due date is January 1, 2017, EPA’s proposal would require data and summaries thereof from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2016. For pollutants for which the applicant monitors monthly, or more frequently, the rule would require data and summaries thereof from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. These requirements create practical and timeliness issues for applicants. In the first – and likely most common – scenario, permittees would be required to review, process, and summarize their most recently received data from (likely) their 2nd quarter sampling in time for a timely application submission. Processing times for samples, as well as internal application reviews to ensure the signatory authority certifies an application that is true, accurate, and complete (which typically take 30 to 60 days), dramatically shorten the applicant’s timing to prepare a complete application. Furthermore, and as EPA is aware, to ensure that they have submitted a complete application by the due date, permittees regularly submit their application months ahead of the due date to ensure that their permit shield is intact and their existing permits are administratively continued. Even assuming a six-month buffer between the last day from which EPA desires sampling data and the application due date, there are substantial timing issues related to permit application submissions. EPA’s proposal to require data from within the last year up to the application due date (for monthly or more frequently sampled pollutants) only exacerbates these issues, as it puts applicants in the position of having to submit an application containing sampling information from the immediately preceding days and months. This information certainly will not be available for some time, putting the applicant in jeopardy of obtaining a timely completeness determination.

In addition to taking a hard look at what past sampling data EPA actually needs, UWAG urges EPA also to consider the impacts of its application requirements on the timing issues related to existing requirements regarding permit application renewal due dates, permit expirations, completeness determinations, and administrative continuances.

The proposed requirement also is inconsistent with EPA’s record keeping requirements, which only require operators keep such information for 3 years. EPA should not create inconsistent record keeping and submission requirements, particularly when EPA has not provided any reason why its current data requirements are not sufficient.

EPA states that these new informational requirements would not result in an increase in effort or information collection. Id. at 31,364-65. On its face, however, EPA’s proposal requires applicants to provide and summarize an additional 1.5 years of sampling data. Doing so takes time, effort, and resources. EPA has not considered, in its ICR or otherwise, the additional informational burden and costs on states and operators related to this proposed change.

UWAG urges EPA to abandon this proposed change, to return Form 2C to its prior language on these points, and to provide any additional clarification it can regarding permit sampling

2-63 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments submission requirements so as to create a workable, reasonable process for permittees and regulators that does not hamstring permittees between application information requirements and the regulatory deadlines regarding application submission, completeness determinations, and administrative continuances.

42 Revised Form 2C states that the data must be provided within 4.5 years of the application due date.

43 EPA also proposes that, if the discharger monitors for a specific pollutant monthly or more frequently, it then must only submit/summarize such data collected within one year of the application. 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,369.

44 Many non-POTW discharges have multiple outfalls with significantly more analytical parameters. As a result, and as discussed further below, this proposed requirement significantly increase the burden on non-POTW applicants.

45 For example, EPA could look to Michigan. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”) does not require permittees to submit any previous discharge monitoring report data because any data that the agency needs can be pulled from its electronic database system, known as MiWaters. MDEQ, MiWaters at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_72753---,00.html (last visited July 29, 2016) (“MiWaters establishes a streamlined electronic permitting process, allowing Michigan to fulfill federal electronic reporting requirements and providing an online component for access to public information.”).

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment Excerpt:

The TCEQ does not support some of the specific revisions to minimum NPDES application form requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. Specifically, the requirement to submit latitude/longitude metadata to the nearest second, requirement to submit NAICS codes in addition to SIC codes, the requirement for existing discharges to submit all data from the previous 4.5 years in applications, and the deletion of the term categorical industrial users.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

2-64 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

States agree with EPA that as the NPDES program has evolved, many existing application requirements and associated forms have become outdated with respect to current program practices. In particular, most states support the proposed updates to this section including the request for electronic mailing addresses, establishing an eighteen-month timeframe for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and non-POTWs to submit effluent information, increasing data age for permit renewal to 4.5 years, cooling water intake structure data, and the request for variance indicators.

Recommendation 7: EPA should finalize the updates noted above as proposed. EPA should also provide specific exceptions to the 4.5 year lookback where some of the data is no longer relevant (i.e. permit renewal is occurring sooner than 4.5 years and/or operations have significantly changed).

Commenter Name: Jack C. Bender Commenter Affiliation: Utility Information Exchange of Kentucky Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0444-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

Monitoring Data Submitted With Applications- 40 CFR 122.21

Currently, the NPDES permitting rules provide for submittal of effluent data in permit renewal applications for the prior 3 years. EPA has proposed to require data for the prior 4.5 years to be submitted in some cases. The preamble to the proposed rule does not provide any justification for increasing the amount of data that must be included with the application. This proposed provision seems to be in conflict with 40 CFR 122.41 (j), which only requires monitoring data including the "results of such analyses" to be maintained for a period of 3 years from the date of sample collection. Accordingly, before the time frame for permit monitoring data is increased beyond 3 years, EPA should provide documentation of the need, as such a change could require facilities to alter record retention policies.

Commenter Name: Name Not Provided Commenter Affiliation: Ohio EPA

2-65 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0455-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

1. Data Age for Permit Renewal 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix): To ensure that the effluent data submission requirements for non-POTWs are consistent with those for POTWs, EPA proposes to add a paragraph to require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years for non-POTW facilities.

Comment: Ohio recommends not requiring facilities to summarize DMR data as part of the NPDES application. Ohio NPDES permit writers analyze DMR data themselves and do not use summarized DMR data submitted on the application form. This would also ensure inexperienced permit writers do not use the same data twice.

To ensure that the effluent data submission requirements for non-POTWs are consistent with those for POTWs, Ohio recommends requiring POTWs to provide data from one priority pollutant sample taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of permit application, instead of from three samples in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(vi).

Commenter Name: Jeffrey L. West Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0457-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

In 40 CFR Part 122.21(g)(7) (ix) of the proposal EPA has suggested that "All existing data for pollutants specified in paragraphs (g) (7)(i) through (viii) of this section that is collected within a four and one-half years of the application must be included in the pollutant data summary submitted by the applicant." Since often the permit specified records retention requirement is 3 years, depending upon the permittee's processes, the retrieval of this data may be problematic. We respectfully request that duration is reduced from four and one-half years to three years so that this requirement is not in direct conflict with the records retention requirements.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new paragraph (ix) to 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7), to mirror the existing language of 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(vi) and (vii), which is applicable to POTWs and corresponding Form 2A. Proposed paragraph 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

2-66 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments would have been applicable to industrial applicants and incorporated into Form 2C. After considering comments received, the EPA is finalizing a modified version of 122.21(g)(7)(ix) that more closely resembles the flexibility provided by the longstanding instructions to Form 2C applicable to those industrial applicants applying for a renewal of an NPDES permit. The final version of 122.21(g)(7)(ix) also provides additional flexibility to applicants by expanding the existing data that may be used from within the previous three years to the previous four and one- half years (i.e., the previous permit term). The EPA is not finalizing the one-year summary provision that was proposed and that mirrored the provision that is applicable to POTWs via 122.21(j)(4)(vii).

B. Three Years v. Four and One-Half Years of Existing Data May be Used

The EPA proposed that non-POTWs submit all existing data from the previous four and one-half years (i.e., the previous permit term) for all pollutants specified in paragraphs 122.21(g)(7)(i) – (viii). The EPA received many comments in opposition to this new requirement. Many cited that current record keeping requirements only mandate that permittees keep records for three years. Many commenters stated that keeping and reporting the additional eighteen months of data would create additional burden and that EPA had not provided an adequate explanation in the proposed preamble for why submission of the additional data was needed. Some commenters pointed out that states would likely already have that information if was reported to the permitting agency. Others cited that requiring pollutant summaries from the previous four and one-half years would be a new requirement and that it would conflict with longstanding practice as provided by the instructions to Form 2C. The EPA agrees that the Form 2C instructions provided flexibility by allowing applicants for a permit renewal to use existing pollutant data so long as the data used met all data requirements, were from samples collected and analyzed within the previous three years, and that all data included were representative of the current discharge. The EPA was convinced by these commenters that a one-size-fits-all approach of mandating including four and one-half years of data in every instance was not justified given that the Agency’s key reason for the requirement was consistency rather than a demonstration of need and that there are many situations where four and one-half years of data would not be useful to the permitting authority. Instead, the final rule maintains and expands the flexibility in the Form 2C instructions. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing new paragraph 122.21(g)(7)(ix) to ensure non-POTW applicants for renewals of permits can use existing data from their current permit term in their renewal application so long as all data requirements are met, the data are from the previous four and one-half years, all data included are representative of the discharge, and all available representative data are considered in the values reported in the application. The EPA is not requiring non-POTW applicants to include more than three years of sampling data, and thus, keep records longer than the current three-year recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 122.41(j); rather, the Agency is allowing applicants to use data that are older (an additional eighteen months, for four and one-half years in total) in their reporting, if the older data are available and are still representative of the current discharge. As one commenter suggested, if the permitting authority believes more data is necessary, it can either find it themselves on their databases or request it from the facility during the permit process. Some comments also asked the EPA to provide exceptions to the requirement, such as where operations have significantly changed within the four and one-half years or permits are renewed sooner than every five years. The EPA has addressed these comments by including in the final regulatory text that all data used be

2-67 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments representative of the current discharge. If processes have changed in the four and one-half years, then the applicant may determine that the older data are no longer representative of the discharge and should not be considered in the values reported in the application. Similarly, if the permit term is shorter than five years, then an applicant would not be obligated or expected to provide data that pre-date the current permit. In addition, the permitting authority, as the end user of the data provided in the application, may determine, where appropriate, that only more recent data are representative of the discharge (e.g., due to a change in practices). Please see the section of the preamble to the final rule that discusses this topic and reference the updated draft Form 2C instructions available in the docket that that are pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget for use by the EPA.

C. Summary of Data Sampled Monthly or More Frequently from the Past One Year

The EPA proposed to include in proposed paragraph 122.21(g)(7)(ix) the same one-year summary provision applicable to POTWs at 122.21(j)(4)(vii). That provision allows an applicant to summarize all data collected within one year of the application (for a permit renewal) for a specific pollutant sampled on a monthly or more frequent basis. The EPA received multiple comments that did not support adding this provision to 122.21(g)(7)(IX). Several comments cited that the additional “requirement” to provide a summary of all pollutant data sampled monthly or more frequently within the previous one year would create additional unnecessary burden. Other comments discussed that only relying on the previous one year of data might exclude valid sampling from analyses. The EPA notes these concerns but clarifies that the provision was proposed as an optional way to submit sampling data in lieu of conducting new samples solely for the purpose of the application. An additional set of comments asked for clarity, demonstrating that the proposal confused members of the public. Thus, because most commenters misunderstood the proposal, EPA does not believe it received the quality of comments that it needs to inform its assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed change. Therefore, the EPA has determined to not finalize this one-year summary provision.

D. Burden

Many commenters, commenting on the expansion of the data age from three years to four and one-half years, the one-year summary provision, or both, argued that the proposed provision would result in unnecessary additional burden. The EPA agrees and has hence revised the language of paragraph 122.21(g)(7)(ix) from what was proposed and has explained in the preamble to the final rule that this provision creates additional flexibility but does not impose additional burden. It allows existing permittees to include data older than three years in the appropriate effluent characterization data sections of Form 2C, if that data exist and are representative of the current discharge. This provision does not require that applicants keep and report such data for longer than the regulations otherwise require.

States continue to have flexibility in determining data requirements so long as they meet the minimum requirements provided by 122.21(g)(7). Because this provision creates additional flexibility beyond what was previously allowed, it should not restrain any current state practices or requirements with respect to non-POTW applicants using existing data in permit renewal applications.

2-68 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

E. Other

Other comments described issues associated with timeliness of reporting data from the previous permit term. As noted, permittees must submit a complete application for permit renewal at least one hundred eighty days (approximately six months) prior to the expiration of their permit to ensure administrative continuance of the current permit terms and conditions until the permitting authority reissues a new permit. The commenters note that it may be difficult to include data collected from the most recent month prior to the date when the renewal application is due. The EPA addressed this concern in the preamble by explaining that this requirement pertains to sampling performed, collected, and analyzed no more than four and one-half years prior to submission, thereby allowing some flexibility for time that may be required for samples to be analyzed after initial collection.

With respect to comments on other topics that were included with comment excerpts on this subject, such as reporting industrial classification codes, reporting electronic mailing addresses, data age for permit renewal, categorical industrial users, cooling water intake structure indications, and variance indications on applications, please refer to response to comment essays 2.c.ii, 2.c.vi, 2.c.v., 2.c.vii, 2.c.viii, and 2.c.ix, respectively.

With respect to one comment that the EPA change the requirements that POTWs provide one sample instead of three, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(vi), this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking as changes to 122.21(j)(4)(vi) were not proposed.

2-69 2.c.v - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.vi - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting of Electronic Mail Address (40 CFR 122.21)

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

States agree with EPA that as the NPDES program has evolved, many existing application requirements and associated forms have become outdated with respect to current program practices. In particular, most states support the proposed updates to this section including the request for electronic mailing addresses, establishing an eighteen-month timeframe for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and non-POTWs to submit effluent information, increasing data age for permit renewal to 4.5 years, cooling water intake structure data, and the request for variance indicators.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the one comment received on the proposed revisions to the NPDES application regulations within 40 CFR 122.21 with respect to adding e-mail addresses as a required element of NPDES applications. The comment expressed support for the effort to request e-mail addresses on NPDES application forms. The comment, from a state membership organization, provides additional support to the EPA’s decision to finalize the elements of the rule at issue.

2-70 2.c.vi - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting of Electronic Mail Address (40 CFR 122.21)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

Commenter Name: Karen Larsen Commenter Affiliation: California Water Boards Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0078-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

3. 40 CFR sections 122.21(j)(6)(i) and (ii)

Comments The proposed regulations are not clear on whether the regulations will require the publicly owned treatment works to report their agency names or the names of companies that haul waste. In addition, the proposed regulations are not clear if the reporting entity will report the number or volume of trucks, or both. Finally, the proposed regulations do not explain if the concern is delivery of trucked or hauled waste to treatment plant headworks or to the treatment plant digesters. We request that the proposed language as shown below be further clarified to address these questions.

Commenter Name: Joe Giudice Commenter Affiliation: City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental Programs Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0095-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

EPA's proposed language in 40 CFR l22.2l(j)(6) states that POTWs are required to submit information from all industrial users (SIUs and NSClUs) as part of their application. According to revised 40 CFR 403.3(v)(ii), NSCIUs are no longer subject to annual sampling, inspections or permitting requirements such as local limits. Therefore, POTWs would not be able to include NSCIUs in the application per proposed 40 CFR l22.2l(j)(6)(i) and (ii). The COP requests the removal of NSCIU reporting in the application.

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

2-71 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

POTW Applications regarding Industrial Users 122.21(j)(6): ADEM requests that EPA clarify that for states administering the pretreatment programs, some of the information required in the Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) permit application may instead be supplied by the significant industrial dischargers (SIDs) and non-significant categorical industrial users (NSCIUs)in pretreatment applications to the state.

Commenter Name: Nina Bell Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

Likewise we agree that EPA should revise 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(j) to require submission of all pretreatment information as well as the proposed revisions concerning cooling water, its source, and intake structure information.

Commenter Name: Carla Reid Commenter Affiliation: Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0237-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

WSSC's comments address the effects of the proposed clarification that "POTWs are required to submit, as part of their application, relevant information from all industrial users (SIUs [significant industrial users] and NSCIUs [nonsignificant categorical industrial users])."

The Federal Register asserts that its proposed language at 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6) would "impose no new burden" to POTWs [81 Federal Register 31351, May 18, 2016]. However, if EPA's proposal to revise the language in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6) to require POTWs applying for a NPDES permit to also submit information for nonsignificant categorical industrial users (NSCIUs), this would add a tremendous burden on POTWs that have a large number of NSCIUs.

Currently, 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i) states that NDPES permit applicants must submit the number of significant industrial users and significant categorical industrial users discharging to the POTW, and 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii) states that POTWs with one or more SIUs must provide the following information for each SIU:

2-72 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

• Name and mailing address;

• Description of all industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge

• Principal products and raw materials of the SIU that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge

• Average daily volume of wastewater discharged;

• Whether the SIU is subject to local limits;

• Whether the SIU is subject to categorical standards; and

• Whether any problems at the POTW have been attributed to the SIU in the past 4.5 years.

Let us consider a POTW' s potential burden if the proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental Category were promulgated. As stated in the proposed rule, "EPA does not propose to prohibit a Control Authority from finding a dental office may qualify as an NSCIU on an individual basis." [79 Federal Register 63281, October 22, 2014]. Based on WSSC's surveying of the dental facilities in 2005 and subsequent updates regarding the total number of dental facilities within our service area in 2011, WSSC could have over 130 dental facilities1 classified as NSCIU. [We understand NSCIU is defined as a CIU that does not discharge more than 100 gallons per day of total categorical wastewater, has consistently complied with all applicable categorical pretreatment standards and requirements, and never discharges any untreated concentrated wastewater.] Currently WSSC permits and regulates 51 SIUs. Therefore, if WSSC is required to provide specific information for the projected 130 dental facilities classified as NSCIU, this could well equate to almost a 4-fold increase in the number of facilities that WSSC must provide information for in the NPDES permitting process. Therefore, we strongly urge EPA to reconsider the adoption of the proposed language change to require POTWs to submit information regarding their NSCIU s.

1 In 2005, WSSC issued 1,023 Dental Surveys to dental facilities within its service area. 8.1 percent of all dentists that returned the survey indicated that they have an installed dental amalgam separator. In 2011, WSSC received an updated list of dental facilities within our service area of 1, 718 dental facilities.

Commenter Name: Brenna Mannion Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0240-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

2-73 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The proposal clarifies that POTWs are required to submit, in their application, all relevant information from all significant and nonsignificant industrial users (SIU and NSIUs). NACWA’s Pretreatment Committee confirms that this change aligns the permitting regulations with the pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.3(v) and will not impact POTW’s existing pretreatment programs. Most already account for both categories of SIU/NSIUs.

Commenter Name: Julie Nahrgang Commenter Affiliation: Water Environment Association of Texas (WEAT), Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies (TACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0259-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

Industrial User Information (40 CFR § 122.21(j)(6)(i) and (ii))

The proposed rule requires applicants to provide information with the application related to hauled or trucked wastes. The term “including trucked or hauled waste” is not clearly defined and could be interpreted to include non-industrial wastes, which are beyond the scope of the pretreatment program rules. Therefore, to clarify the scope of the proposed rule, we recommend either deleting the phrase “including trucked or hauled waste” or qualifying the term to specify that the phrase includes only that waste from industrial users or otherwise within the purview of the pretreatment program.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

The TCEQ does not support some of the specific revisions to minimum NPDES application form requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. Specifically, the requirement to submit latitude/longitude metadata to the nearest second, requirement to submit NAICS codes in addition to SIC codes, the requirement for existing discharges to submit all data from the previous 4.5 years in applications, and the deletion of the term categorical industrial users.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment Excerpt:

2-74 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The TCEQ agrees that the proposed rule should be revised to include the requirement to report NSCIUs in the NPDES applications in order to align this rule with the existing pretreatment regulations. However, the specific deletion of the term categorical industrial users (CIUs) from the existing rule has the potential to cause confusion to the publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and consultants preparing the applications. As the EPA stated, all CIUs are considered a subset of the broader term “significant industrial users,” however it has been the TCEQ’s experience that even for POTWs with an approved pretreatment program this is not always clearly understood. In this case,it is better to be verbose in order to be clear and thus receive the required information from applicants. With the proposed language, applicants may not realize that CIUs must also be reported due to the deletion of the term “CIU” and the addition of the term “NSCIU”. The TCEQ requests that the EPA keep the term “CIU” and just add the term “NSCIU” to eliminate confusion. The TCEQ recommends that the final rule in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i) and (ii) include all terms SIUs, CIUs, and NSCIUs.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

At least two states requested clarification on how the pretreatment reporting requirements applying to both Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Non-Significant Categorical Users (NSCIUs), including trucked or hauled waste, might apply to state administered mini- pretreatment programs.

Commenter Name: Christopher L. Risetto Commenter Affiliation: Center for Regulatory Reasonableness (CRR) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0021-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

2. Permit Application – Information on Trucked-in Waste

The proposed change to 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(j)(6)(i) would add a permit application requirement for publicly owned treatment works (“POTWs”) to include, when identifying the number of significant industrial users (“SIUs”) and non-significant categorical industrial users (“NSCIUs”), “trucked or hauled waste, discharging to the POTW.” Subsection 122.21(j)(6)(ii) sets forth a list of information to be submitted pertaining to each SIU that would also apply to trucked or hauled

2-75 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments waste. Subsection 122.21(j)(6)(iii) allows the Director to waive the (j)(6)(i) and (ii) submission requirements for POTWs with an approved pretreatment program if the permit applicant has submitted substantially identical information in the annual report or its pretreatment program.

The proposal pertaining to permit application requirements associated with trucked or hauled waste raises the issue as to what can be submitted in the permit application vs. what information would need to be submitted under 40 C.F.R. §122.42(b)(2) -- which requires POTWs to report any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source.

While septage trucked to POTWs will typically have a consistent level of pollutants, truckloads of wastewater from other sources will vary from source to source. For example, while a number of different truckloads of wastewater from a specific landfill will typically contain similar pollutant levels, it may differ from truckloads originating from another landfill source. To avoid periodic reporting under § 122.42(b), and the potential for the Director to then modify the NPDES permit, it should be acceptable for a POTW to include in its permit application a range of pollutants from trucked waste sources. For example, the POTW could identify a range of concentrations for pollutants of concern associated with trucked-in waste from landfills. As such, the permit would be based upon such information, and notification would only be required under § 122.42(b) if the POTW had information showing that a specific landfill’s truck waste would exceed the previously provided values.

We further note that § 122.42(b) provides a process for the identification of influent to the POTW where it is substantially changed from that identified in the permit application. It is our understanding that if the flow is from an SIU discharging into the sewer system from its facility, pre-approval by the permitting authority is not required. Notification is provided under § 122.42(b) and the permitting authority can decide whether to commence a permit modification process. During that period, the permittee is protected by the “permit as a shield” as long as it has appropriately provided the requisite notice. Otherwise, requiring approval before the discharge occurs could have the effect of adversely impacting industrial users by freezing their operations pending modification of the NPDES permit.

Please confirm that the process is no different for trucked or hauled-waste, i.e., that preapproval is not required if the waste hauled to the POTW is substantially changed. We would appreciate EPA confirming our understanding in its response to comments and otherwise address the extent to which NPDES permitting authority approval is required before an SIU (whether discharging into the sewer or trucking or hauling its wastewater to the POTW) could change its discharge.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the comments and concerns expressed in relation to the proposed changes in reporting information on significant industrial

2-76 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments users (SIUs), categorical industrial users (CIUs), and non-significant categorical industrial users (NSCIUs) by publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) pursuant to 122.21(j)(6) as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates rulemaking, proposed on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31343). In this final rule, the EPA is finalizing some of the proposed changes to 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i) and is not finalizing other proposed changes based on consideration of comments the Agency received.

Some comment excerpts expressed support of the proposed changes and some stated that this would align the definition with current pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403. The EPA acknowledges this support.

Proposed changes regarding significant industrial users (SIUs) were intended to realign application reporting requirements with new classes of industrial users promulgated in 2005 (i.e., non-significant categorical industrial users (NSCIUs)). See “Streamlining the General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution; Final Rule,” 70 FR 60134. Today’s final rule does not expand the reporting requirements to hauled domestic waste. Industrial waste may be directly piped or hauled to POTWs, and the parenthetical clause was inserted to merely remind applicants that any industrial waste that satisfies the definition of Significant Industrial User per 40 CFR 403.3(v) must be reported, regardless of conveyance method to the POTW.

The proposed and final rule as part of this rulemaking effort did not open the regulations at 122.42(b) for comment. Neither reporting on application forms nor notification per 40 CFR 122.42(b) provides “approval” of the POTW’s acceptance of industrial waste, as a commenter questioned. The same commenter also asked for clarification about permittees protected by the “permit as a shield” policy. The EPA has established in previous policy statements which information provided in applications may provide a basis for the permit as a shield defense. For more information on the “permit as a shield” policy, see 64 FR 42441-42442, August 4, 1999.

B. Reporting Detailed Information on NSCIUs Pursuant to Proposed Changes to 122.21(j)(6)(ii)

The EPA received comments pertaining to potential increases in burden associated with the proposed changes to the NPDES permit application regulations at 122.21(j)(6)(ii). Some commenters noted that the changes to 122.21(j)(6)(ii) in the proposed rule would require POTWs to report detailed information on a potentially significant number of CIUs which the control authority determined to be NSCIUs, potentially increasing the administrative burden of control authorities. The EPA agrees with those comments and is, therefore, not finalizing the proposed revision to 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii) so that the changes in this rulemaking carry forward the burden reduction established by the 2005 Pretreatment “Streamlining” revisions. POTWs are required to report detailed information on SIUs in application Form 2A. For clarification purposes, the EPA reiterates that the term SIU includes industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.6, and 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, as well as other industrial users as described at 40 CFR 403.3(v), regardless of conveyance method (which includes both piped as well as trucked or hauled wastewater). The term does not include facilities

2-77 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments that the control authority has designated as NSCIUs. The instructions in the NPDES application Form 2A guide applicants on what to report on industrial users when filing permit applications.

One commenter raised concern that if pretreatment standards for dental offices were finalized, then dental offices would become CIUs, and thus, a POTW could be required to report detailed information, as part of application Form 2A, on each dental facility that introduces pollutants to the POTW. The commenter raised concern that reporting such information would quadruple the number of SIUs for which the commenter would have to supply detailed information pursuant to 122.21(j)(6)(ii) via Form 2A. Between the EPA’s proposal of this rule and this final rule, the Agency finalized pretreatment standards for the dental office category (40 CFR 441). The final pretreatment standards at 40 CFR part 441 specifically state that dental offices are neither SIUs nor CIUs, as defined in 40 CFR 403, unless designated as such by the control authority. Thus, the concern is resolved.

C. Comments Regarding Wastes Trucked or Hauled to the POTW

The EPA received several comments regarding language in the proposed changes to the regulations that identified “trucked or hauled” waste. One commenter stated that it was not clear whether the proposal required POTWs to report information on companies that truck or haul wastes to the POTW or if the number or volume of trucks is required to be reported. Today’s final rule does not expand the reporting requirements to hauled septage (domestic waste). As industrial waste may also be directly piped or hauled to POTWs, the parenthetical clause was inserted to merely remind applicants that any industrial user that satisfies the definition of Significant Industrial User per 40 CFR 403.3(v) must be reported, regardless of conveyance method to the POTW.

With respect to whether the POTW applicant would report the number of trucks, the volume of trucks, or both for hauled waste, EPA clarifies that applicants must report detailed information on SIUs, pursuant to 122.21(j)(6)(ii), including: name, mailing address, description of all industrial processes that affect or contribute to the discharge, list of principal products or raw materials that affect or contribute to the discharge, average daily volume discharged by the SIU, information on local limits and categorical standards to which the SIU is subject.

The same commenter stated it was not clear if the concern was trucked or hauled wastes to the plant headworks or to the plant digesters. The EPA clarifies that pursuant to the final rule, a POTW applicant must report the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that discharge their waste to the POTW in any manner, which includes waste delivered via pipe, direction connection, truck, or haul, to any part of the POTW, including collection system, headworks, or digester. The existing application requirement for POTWs to identify the major structures through which wastewater enters the treatment plant and a process flow diagram or schematic with water balance remain unchanged and, as such, all flows to the POTW are to be accounted. 40 CFR 122.21(j)(ii) and (iii). The commenter is also reminded that the pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.5(b)(8) specifically prohibit a POTW from accepting trucked or hauled pollutants except at discharge points designated by the POTW.

D. Pretreatment Program Administration

2-78 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Some commenters asked that EPA clarify that some information required in the POTW permit application, namely information on industrial users, could be supplied instead in the industrial user’s application to the pretreatment program where the pretreatment program is administered by the state. The EPA clarifies that, generally, one of three entities may be the pretreatment control authority: a POTW if approved in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 403.11; the state, if it chooses to administer the pretreatment program pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10 and is approved by the EPA and where the POTW in that state is not approved in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 403.11; or, the EPA, if neither the state nor the municipality (POTW) are approved. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(iii) provide that information required by 122.21(j)(6)(i) and (ii) in POTW applications may be waived by the NPDES program Director for POTWs with pretreatment programs if the applicant has submitted substantially similar information in an annual report submitted within one year of the application or a pretreatment program submission. See 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(iii). As the federal pretreatment regulations do not require industrial user application forms, review of states’ or POTW industrial user application forms and whether they may provide adequate information is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The NPDES Permitting Authority must ensure that information provided contains information specified in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6).

One commenter requested clarification on how pretreatment reporting requirements for both SIUs and NSCIUs might apply to a state’s administered “mini-pretreatment programs.” Neither this proposed nor final rule amend or change pretreatment program reporting requirements, thus, comments on changes to pretreatment reporting requirements are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

2-79 2.c.vii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Reporting Numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.viii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Cooling Water Intake Structure Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(9))

Commenter Name: Kris Sigford Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0080-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

MCEA supports the updates and additions to applicant information, in particular the inclusion of latitude/longitude, cooling water intakes, and an indication of variance requests.

Regarding cooling water intakes, this information is key in understanding aggregate water use in watersheds and estimating potential stream impacts from withdrawals.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 61

Comment Excerpt:

Section 9—Cooling Water Intake Structures

EPA’s proposed Section 9.1 deletes the phrase “non-contact cooling water.” Southern Company requests EPA to provide the reason for this change.

Commenter Name: Nina Bell Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

Likewise we agree that EPA should revise 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(j) to require submission of all pretreatment information as well as the proposed revisions concerning cooling water, its source, and intake structure information.

2-80 2.c.viii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Cooling Water Intake Structure Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(9))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Joseph P. Lapcevic Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0238-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

Cooling Water Intake Structures Reporting Requirements

While FirstEnergy is generally not opposed to the new requirements for reporting on cooling water intake structures at facilities, we do have some concerns. Specifically, FirstEnergy, as stated above, has a non-emitting nuclear fleet. Nuclear is very environmentally friendly, but does have significant security pressures that FirstEnergy actively cooperates with Homeland Security and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on. FirstEnergy believes that requiring the reporting of specific latitude and longitude information on cooling water intake structures on a publically available form (potentially on the internet, as addressed later in the proposed rule) could pose a significant security risk to our nuclear fleet by publically pointing out exactly where the facility withdraws water from. We would prefer that this information be allowed to be marked as "Confidential Business Information" or removed from the form.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment Excerpt:

H. EPA Needs to Explain its New Use/Source Identification Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures.

EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(f) to require applicants to indicate whether the facility uses cooling water and, if so, to specify the source, and to remind applicants that use cooling water intake structures described in 40 C.F.R. § 125.91 to comply with 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(r). Id. at 31,351, 31,369. UWAG discussed the value of codifying regulatory reminders above, and those sentiments apply equally here. Beyond the application requirements of § 122.21(r), which for facilities covered by Part 125 are merely duplicated by EPA’s proposal here, UWAG wonders what the purpose of this proposed revision is. As EPA knows, and as the proposal tacitly recognizes, not all facilities are subject to § 122.21(r), yet all applicants that use cooling water would be subject to this new regulation. Is EPA looking for a master list of all cooling water uses and intake structures, not just § 316(b) covered facilities? EPA needs to identify a regulatory driver for the collection of this information. Otherwise, this change

2-81 2.c.viii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Cooling Water Intake Structure Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(9))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments inappropriately carries burdens and costs without any tie to the regulations or statute. Without any justification, EPA should abandon this proposal and should revise its forms appropriately.

Like many of EPA’s proposed changes to the application requirements, this proposal creates new, additional informational burdens and costs on states and operators, none of which has been considered in EPA’s ICR or otherwise.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

States agree with EPA that as the NPDES program has evolved, many existing application requirements and associated forms have become outdated with respect to current program practices. In particular, most states support the proposed updates to this section including the request for electronic mailing addresses, establishing an eighteen-month timeframe for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and non-POTWs to submit effluent information, increasing data age for permit renewal to 4.5 years, cooling water intake structure data, and the request for variance indicators.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the supportive comments received on this revision and agrees that this requirement will allow a permitting authority to receive key information necessary to effectively and efficiently develop an NPDES permit for a facility with a cooling water intake structure subject to the requirement of 40 C.F.R. 125. Subparts I, J, and N. One commenter expressed concern with and questioned the need for the proposed parenthetical note. Another commenter suggested the requirement would create additional burden and costs on facilities that use cooling water but are not subject to the requirements at 40 CFR 122.21(r). However, no specific costs or burdens were shared or suggested by the commenter.

The EPA’s final rule requires applicants to indicate whether the facility uses cooling water and to specify the source of the cooling water. The final rule does not include the proposed parenthetical note in 40 CFR 122.21(f)(9) and instead includes the explanation about the applicability of application requirements under 40 CFR 122.21(r) in the revised application form

2-82 2.c.viii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Cooling Water Intake Structure Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(9))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments instructions. Based on the comments received, the EPA determined that the explanation about the applicability of application requirements under 40 CFR 122.21(r) is best placed in the application form instructions.

The EPA responded to comments about the potential burden associated with the regulatory and NPDES permit application revisions of the Cooling Water Intake Structure regulation. See the EPA’s response to comment essay code 7, the preamble to the final rule, as well as the information collection request for this final rule, which can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OW- 2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018- 0629.

The EPA received comments expressing general support for the overall revisions and updates to the application requirements and forms. These comment does not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to the elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule and, therefore, does not require a response.

One commenter suggested that the EPA should revise 40 CFR 122.21(j) to require submission of pretreatment information. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not require a response. This comment does not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to the elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule.

B. Other

With regard to the comment about the revision related to technology-based variances, see the EPA’s response to code 2.c.ix.

One comment suggested that the revised Form 1, Section 9.1 deleted the phrase “non-contact cooling water” and requested an explanation of that deletion. The EPA notes that the comment is incorrect. Neither the existing Form 1 nor the revised Form 1 contain a question related to the phrase “non-contact cooling water,” thus, the comment isn’t accurate, and no response or explanation is required. The EPA notes that other revised NPDES application forms (e.g., Forms 2A, 2C, 2D, 2E) continue to use the term “non-contact cooling water.” Regarding the comment about the revisions to Form 1, see also the EPA’s response to code 8.a.

C. The EPA Is Not Taking Final Action on These Proposed Revisions at This Time

Some comment excerpts in this comment code refer to proposed revisions to the application requirements for latitude/longitude (throughout 40 CFR 122.21). The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions for latitude/longitude. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic does not require a response at this time.

2-83 2.c.viii - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Cooling Water Intake Structure Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(9))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

Commenter Name: Kris Sigford Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0080-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment Excerpt:

MCEA supports the updates and additions to applicant information, in particular the inclusion of latitude/longitude, cooling water intakes, and an indication of variance requests.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 62

Comment Excerpt:

Section 10.1—Variance Requests

Southern Company believes the proposed Section 10 requirement that applicants check whether they intend to request variances is unnecessary and inappropriate. An applicant may not know at the time of the application whether it needs a variance and it would be premature to express the intent to request or not request a variance at that time. Permittees should not be boxed in at the time that they are filling out renewal applications if the need for a variance is unknown.

Commenter Name: Frederic P. Andes Commenter Affiliation: Federal Water Quality Coalition Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0182-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

REQUEST FOR VARIANCE INDICATION: Industrial and municipal dischargers must indicate in the permit renewal application whether a variance to water quality-based permit requirements is requested.

EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 122.21(f) and 122.210), to add a paragraph requiring applicants to indicate in the permit renewal application whether they are requesting any of the variances permitted under 40 CFR 122.21(m) (for non-POTWs) and (n) (for POTW s). EPA

2-84 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments states that the primary reason for this change would be to ensure that the permitting authority is aware of the request at the time of permit application and can therefore better determine whether the facility has submitted all of the required information. However, this rationale does not recognize that variance requests and permit applications have different timelines. Renewal applications must be submitted at least 180 days, in some cases 270 days, before the current permit expires, if the facility wishes to continue discharging. At that point in time, it is unlikely that a final conclusion will have been made as to whether a variance is needed. During the permit renewal process, large amounts of data are collected and compiled, to fully characterize the effluent. Thorough evaluations of these data versus new or changing standards may not be, and often are not, completed prior to submittal of the renewal application. Moreover, discussions with the regulatory agency during the permitting process facilitate understanding of the implementation strategy for new standards, and one may determine at that point that a variance is needed. In these situations, one would not have known, when submitting the permit application, that a variance request would be submitted later.

EPA's Proposal does not clearly state whether if industrial and/or municipal dischargers would still have the opportunity to pursue a variance if that intent was not indicated in the original permit renewal application. If variance requests would only be considered if they were noted in the permit renewal application, this would likely cause permittees to make premature decisions regarding permitting strategy, rather than decisions based upon well-established data and logical evaluations. Additionally EPA states the rationale for the change is to "better determine whether the facility has submitted all the required information". This statement once more obscures the intent of the proposed change - is EPA requiring a simple indication of intention to submit a variance request with the application, or must the discharger meet all requirements for submittal of a variance application? Again, EPA minimizes the impact of the change, stating that the proposal "imposes no new burden." The burden imposed is substantial, and the proposed rule change should not be adopted.

Commenter Name: Nina Bell Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment Excerpt:

While it is not clear to us why EPA should be asking sources if they are requesting variances and including that option seems to be EPA’s way of encouraging variances, which is at odds with the Clean Water Act, we are also aware that some states’ permitting authorities do not fully understand how to issue variances, and as a result may fail to acknowledge the information required to issue them and EPA's oversight authority.

2-85 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Susan Hauser Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0198-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

I also support better documentation of variances requested by permittees. These changes will better protect local waterways and allow citizens to better understand potential impacts to waterways near their communities.

Commenter Name: Steve Spacek Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0290-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

I also support better documentation of variances requested by permit seekers, and to issue public notice of permit actions online, rather than only in print newspapers.

Commenter Name: David L. Smiga Commenter Affiliation: United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0408-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment Excerpt:

Issue: EPA is proposing changes to Existing Application Requirements in 40 CFR 122.21 which will require a request for variance indication at the time of permit application. This proposal is a significant change which directly contradicts existing regulations and requirements.

Comment:

EPA proposes adding a new paragraph 40 CFR 122.21(£)(10) to require the applicant to indicate whether he or she is requesting any of the variances under 122.21(m) or (n) at the time of permit application. This change is being proposed to ensure the permitting authority is aware of the request at the time of permit application and could better determine whether the facility has submitted all of the required information.

2-86 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

EPA states that this proposal would not alter any of the existing requirements of 40 CFR 122.21 (m), and imposes no new burden; however, this statement is simply not true. Multiple variances authorized under §122.21(m) allow a request for a variance to be made until the end of the public comment period on the permit from which the modification is sought, so this proposal directly contradicts the existing regulation. The permittee may not know a variance is needed until the Draft Permit is proposed and the State has determined the applicable effluent limitations to be imposed. In many cases, such as in the determination of thermal and water quality based effluent limits, the calculation of appropriate permit limits may be influenced by the permit engineer's use of allowable mixing zones, reasonable potential calculations, available data, and current water quality standards so final limits cannot be anticipated at the time of permit application.

This proposal could possibly result in permittees applying for variances at the time of permit application more often than what is actually needed, which would impose a significant unnecessary burden on both the permittee and the agencies.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment Excerpt:

I. EPA Should Clarify Its Variance Notification Requirement

EPA proposes to require that applicants indicate whether they are requesting any of the variances available under 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(m). Id. at 31,352. UWAG generally does not oppose a requirement that permit applicants inform regulators up front if they will be seeking a variance. As EPA knows, however, for some variances, many permit applicants do not know if they will need a variance until well into the permitting process. For other variances, EPA regulations are clear that they must be sought up front.

In post-proposal discussions with UWAG regarding this proposed requirement, EPA stated that its intent was for informational purposes only to assist the permitting authority and was not meant to prevent a variance request if the question was not answered in the affirmative in the application or to prevent an applicant from obtaining a variance.

Consistent with EPA’s comments, EPA should clarify its proposed regulatory language, as well as the instructions in Form 1, that this requirement is for the regulator’s informational purposes and, regardless of how the question is answered, it will have no impact on whether a variance will be available.

2-87 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment Excerpt:

The TCEQ objects to the requirement for existing discharges to submit all effluent data from the previous 4.5 years of operation in renewal applications. The TCEQ issues permits under the Basin Permitting Program in rules established in 30 TAC §305.71 which requires discharges within specific water quality segments to include the same expiration date. This often results in TPDES permits being issued for terms less than five years, in some instances as few as two years. Furthermore, existing discharges frequently apply for amendments of existing permits to modify treatment units, increase permitted flows, adjust production, and other reasons which alter the quality of effluent discharges. Also, all existing discharge data is submitted to the TCEQ and subsequently to the EPA and is available in EPA’s ICIS database. The TCEQ recommends modifying the rule to not require re-submitting data that was provided in previous applications or does not represent current treatment level conditions.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

States agree with EPA that as the NPDES program has evolved, many existing application requirements and associated forms have become outdated with respect to current program practices. In particular, most states support the proposed updates to this section including the request for electronic mailing addresses, establishing an eighteen-month timeframe for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and non-POTWs to submit effluent information, increasing data age for permit renewal to 4.5 years, cooling water intake structure data, and the request for variance indicators.

Response:

A. General

One comment expressed general support for this revision and one comment supported the EPA’s proposal, as it will allow citizens to better understand potential impacts to waterways near their

2-88 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments communities. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, the EPA is finalizing revisions, as proposed, to 40 CFR 122.21(f) and 40 CFR 122.21(j) to require applicants to indicate whether they are requesting any of the technology-based variances allowed under 40 CFR 122.21(m) for non-POTWs and 40 CFR 122.21(n) for POTWs. This will ensure the permitting authority is aware of a technology-based variance request, if known at the time of permit application, which will enable the permitting authority to more effectively and efficiently coordinate with the applicant and appropriate regulators on the technology-based variance request.

Some comments expressed concern and opposition to the EPA’s proposal because, in some cases, an applicant may not know at the time of the application whether it needs a variance. Additionally, comments questioned whether the EPA’s proposal limited the opportunity to pursue a variance to the time of permit application and suggested that the EPA clarify the rule language, as well as the instructions to the NPDES Application Form 1. The EPA acknowledges that there may be some instances where an applicant will not know at the time of application whether they will request a technology-based variance. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, the revision does not and is not intended to limit an applicant’s ability to request a technology-based variance only to the time of application. The final rule does not alter any existing requirements in 40 CFR 122.21(m) or 40 CFR 122.21(n), and an applicant continues to be able to request a technology-based variance in accordance with existing statutory and regulatory requirements. The rule language itself includes “if known at the time of application” to reflect this concept. Additionally, the instructions to the NDPES Application Forms 1 and 2A reflect this clarification by stating: “If known at the time of application, check all of the authorized variances that you plan to request or renew.” and, “The ability to request a variance is not limited to the time of application, and an applicant may request a variance consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The EPA also emphasizes that the technology-based variances available under 40 CFR 122.21(m) and 122.21(n) are different from, and do not include, WQS variances from water quality-based effluent limitations. Comments received discussing the water quality-based effluent limitation development process, “reasonable potential,” water quality standards or WQS variances, and mixing zones are outside the scope of this provision of the rulemaking, and do not require a response.

One comment suggests that the reason EPA included this requirement is to encourage variances, which the commenters assert would be at odds with the Clean Water Act and unwise given their view that some states “do not fully understand how to issue variances.” The EPA disagrees. The reason for this new requirement is explained in the preamble to today’s rule, and EPA has no reason to believe that there will be an increase in the number of variances due to this change. The technology-based variances that applicants will be required to indicate they are seeking following this final rule are outlined in Clean Water Act Section 301 and allowed only in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(m) for non-POTWs and 40 CFR 122.21(n) for POTWs. The commenter does not provide any support for its view that some state permitting authorities do not understand how to issue variances (an assertion which, in any event, is outside the scope of today’s rulemaking).

One comment suggests that the EPA’s proposal would substantially increase burden on permittees. The EPA disagrees. The supporting statement and information collection request for this provision of the final rule estimates that this revision will have minimal burden (assumed

2-89 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments zero hours) addition or reduction for permittees, authorized states, and the EPA. This is because the revisions request that permittees indicate in the application form whether they are currently operating under a technology-based variance or are requesting a technology-based variance that may be allowed under 40 CFR 122.21(m) for non-POTWs and 40 CFR 122.21(n) for POTWs. A technology-based variance would be a major component of a permit; thus, the application respondent is likely to know this information and would not need to review records to complete this entry in Forms 1 and 2A. A small number of technology-based variances are requested each year. Data collected as part of EPA ICR No. ICR 0229.23 indicated there were only sixty-one permits that included technology-based variance requests or technology-based variance renewals that would be subject to the regulation. Because of the small number of permittees that would be affected, the EPA expects that burden addition or reduction for permittees, authorized states, and the EPA to be minimal and has assumed it to be zero hours. The information collection request for this final rule can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629. In addition, the language in the final rule requiring an indication that a variance will be sought only where “known at the time of application” will address any concern that permittees will feel pressure to apply for variances in cases where it is not clear they will be needed.

B. Other

Some comments expressed general support for the proposed revisions to the application requirements, including latitude/longitude, electronic mailing addresses, new discharger data submission, cooling water intake structure indication, and indication of variance requests, as well as the option to issue public notice of permit actions online, rather than only in print newspapers. One comment expresses opposition to the proposed revisions to the age of effluent data for use in permit renewal applications.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to latitude and longitude requirements (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii)). The EPA received numerous comment on this topic, which require additional time to analyze. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, the EPA is not responding to these comments at this time.

Regarding the comments regarding the proposed revisions to new discharger data submission (40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(vi), 122.21(j)(4)(i), and 122.21(j)(5)(i)), see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 2.c.iv as well as the preamble to the final rule.

Regarding the comments regarding the proposed revision to data age for permit renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)), see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 2.c.v as well as the preamble to the final rule.

Regarding the comments regarding the proposed revisions for reporting of electronic email addresses (various provisions in 40 CFR 122.21), see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 2.c.vi as well as the preamble to the final rule.

2-90 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the comment regarding the proposed revision for cooling water intake structure indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(9)), see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 2.c.viii as well as the preamble to the final rule.

Regarding the comment regarding the proposed revision to public notice requirements (40 CFR 124.10(c)), see the EPA’s response essay to comment codes 4.b, 4.b.i, 4.b.ii, and 4.b.iii as well as the preamble to the final rule.

2-91 2.c.ix - Changes to Existing Application Requirements - Request for Variance Indication (40 CFR 122.21(f)(10) and 122.21(j)(1)(ix))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

3. Water Quality-Based Permitting Process – Reserved

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to these regulatory sections, except comment code 3.d. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

3-1 3. Water Quality-Based Permitting Process – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

3.a - Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

3-2 3.a - Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

3.b - Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

3-3 3.b - Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

3.c - Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

3-4 3.c - Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d)) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

3.d - Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k))

Commenter Name: John Pastore Commenter Affiliation: Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0169-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

BMP Guidance

The Note to Paragraph (k)(4) provides references to technical information on BMPs and the elements of BMPs. To ensure that the most current BMP guidance is provided, SCAP recommends that the listed BMP guidance documents be replaced by a general reference to the website where updated BMP information is contained. SCAP recommends that §122.44(k)(4) be revised as indicated below:

“§122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see §123.25).

* * * *

(k) * * *

(4) * * *

Note to Paragraph (k)(4): Additional technical information on BMPs and the elements of BMPs is contained in the following documents: Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices (BMPs), October 1993, EPA No. 833/B–93–004, NTIS No. PB 94– 78324, ERIC No. W498); Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices, September 1992, EPA No. 832/R–92–005, NTIS No. PB 92–235951, ERIC No. N482); Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, Developing PollutionPrevention Plans and Best Management Practices: Summary Guidance, EPA No. 833/ R–92–001, NTIS No. PB 93– 223550; ERIC No. W139; Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices, September 1992;

EPA 832/R–92–006, NTIS No. PB 92–235969, ERIC No. N477; Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices: Summary Guidance, EPA 833/R–92–002, NTIS No. PB 94–133782; ERIC No. W492. EPA guidance documents can be obtained through the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at http://www.epa.gov/nscep. In addition, States may have BMP guidance documents.”

3-5 3.d - Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: James E. Colston Commenter Affiliation: Orange County Sanitation District Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0187-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

BMP Guidance

The Note to Paragraph (k)(4) provides references to technical information on BMPs and the elements of BMPs.

COMMENT: To ensure that the most current BMP guidance is provided, OCSD recommends that the listed BMP guidance documents be replaced by a general reference to the website where updated BMP information is contained. OCSD recommends that §122.44(k)(4) be revised as indicated below:

“§122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). * * * * * (k) * * * (4) * * * Note to Paragraph (k)(4): Additional technical information on BMPs and the elements of BMPs is contained in the following documents: Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices (BMPs), October 1993, EPA No. 833/B–93–004, NTIS No. PB 94– 78324, ERIC No. W498); Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices, September 1992, EPA No. 832/R–92–005, NTIS No. PB 92–235951, ERIC No. N482); Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices: Summary Guidance, EPA No. 833/ R–92–001, NTIS No. PB 93–223550; ERIC No. W139; Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices, September 1992;

EPA 832/R–92–006, NTIS No. PB 92–235969, ERIC No. N477; Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices: Summary Guidance, EPA 833/R–92–002, NTIS No. PB 94– 133782; ERIC No. W492. EPA guidance documents can be obtained through the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at http://www.epa.gov/nscep. In addition, States may have BMP guidance documents.”

3-6 3.d - Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Adam Link Commenter Affiliation: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0416-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

The Note to Paragraph (k)(4) provides references to technical information on BMPs and the elements of BMPs. To ensure that the most current BMP guidance is provided, CASA recommends that the listed BMP guidance documents be replaced by a general reference to the website where updated BMP information is contained. CASA recommends that § 122.44(k)(4) be revised as indicated below:

“§ 122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment Excerpt:

J. EPA Should Remove the Best Management Practices Note Below 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k).

EPA proposes to revise the note below 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k) to remove so-called outdated information that apparently is no longer “available to read.” Id. at 31,355. Even accepting that reasoning, UWAG urges EPA to remove the entire note from the regulations. The inclusion of some, but not all, relevant sources of information related to substantive compliance in a codified note provides the public, stakeholders, and regulators with the impression that such sources of information or the best management practices (“BMPs”) therein are favored or preferred by EPA, when others may be just as, or more, acceptable to states or otherwise more appropriate under the circumstances. EPA, states, and stakeholders have made scores of BMP information available on their websites. This codification is no longer necessary. As an alternative, EPA could simply note that sources of information regarding BMPs are available on its website, as well as the websites of the states.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

3-7 3.d - Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment Excerpt:

Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k))

Refer to the best management practice specific documentation language objection listed under the Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56).

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment Excerpt:

Proposed NPDES Updates Rule

There are two provisions in this proposed rule that states believe are helpful to have in regulation, are consistent with current NPDES program implementation, and are not likely to create significant new work for the permitting authority. These include:

1. Vessels Exclusion (40 CFR 122.3(a))

2. Best Management Practices (BMPs) (40 CFR 122.44(k)(4)

Recommendation 3: EPA should finalize these sections as proposed.

Commenter Name: Claudio H. Ternieden Commenter Affiliation: Water Environment Federation (WEF) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0448-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

BMP Guidance

The Note to Paragraph (k)(4) provides references to technical information on BMPs and the elements of BMPs.

3-8 3.d - Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

COMMENT: To ensure that the most current BMP guidance is provided, WEF recommends that the listed BMP guidance documents be replaced by a general reference to the website where updated BMP information is contained. WEF recommends that §122.44(k)(4) be revised as indicated below:

“§122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(4) * * *

Note to Paragraph (k)(4): Additional technical information on BMPs and the elements of BMPs is contained in the following documents: Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices (BMPs), October 1993, EPA No. 833/B–93–004, NTIS No. PB 94– 78324, ERIC No. W498); Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices, September 1992, EPA No. 832/R–92–005, NTIS No. PB 92–235951, ERIC No. N482); Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices: Summary Guidance, EPA No. 833/ R–92–001, NTIS No. PB 93– 223550; ERIC No. W139; Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices, September 1992;

EPA 832/R–92–006, NTIS No. PB 92–235969, ERIC No. N477; Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices: Summary Guidance, EPA 833/R–92–002, NTIS No. PB 94–133782; ERIC No. W492. EPA guidance documents can be obtained through the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at http://www.epa.gov/nscep. In addition, States may have BMP guidance documents.”

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing the correction to the Note to 40 CFR 122.44(k)(4), Best Management Practices (BMPs), as proposed with a minor modification, to delete outdated references to information sources that are no longer available. The final Note includes the website address where updated BMP information is contained to ensure that the most current BMP guidance can be obtained by the public.

The EPA acknowledges the comments received related to proposed changes to the regulatory Note to 40 CFR 122.44(k)(4). The EPA received multiple comments, some supporting the

3-9 3.d - Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments proposed change to the regulatory note and some suggesting that the EPA remove references to all the listed BMPs and replace them with an updated publication website where BMP documents can be obtained. The EPA agrees that the list of BMPs is not exhaustive but feels strongly that maintaining the long-standing list of BMPs in the regulatory Note provides less confusion for those who may be accustomed to those references appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations. The EPA has added the reference to the Agency’s National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) website (https://www.epa.gov/nscep) where users can search for any additional, relevant guidance documents. In addition, the EPA has responded to commenter concerns by adding text to the Note explaining that the BMPs guidance documents listed remain guidance only and do not carry regulatory weight merely because they are listed in the Note.

One comment received about BMPs was in response to proposed revisions to Fact Sheet Requirements under 40 CFR 124.56. The EPA is not addressing the proposal and public comments to that regulatory provision at this time.

3-10 3.d - Best Management Practices (40 CFR 122.44(k))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

3.e - Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l)) – Reserved The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

3-11 3.e - Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l)) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

3.f - Design Flow for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR 122.45(b)) – Reserved The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

3-12 3.f - Design Flow for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR 122.45(b)) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4. Permit Objection, Documentation, and Process Efficiencies – Reserved

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to these regulatory sections, except as described in comment codes 4.b, 4.b.i, 4.b.ii, and 4.b.iii. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

4-1 4. Permit Objection, Documentation, and Process Efficiencies – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4.a - Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44) – Reserved

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

4-1 4.a - Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4.b - Public Notice Requirements - General (40 CFR 124.10(c))

Commenter Name: Michael Schon Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0183-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

EPA should clarify that state agencies may continue to provide public notice of proposed permits through local publications. PCA supports EPA’s proposal to allow public notice of proposed permits through agency websites. However, state regulators should retain the ability to provide notice through local publications, especially in communities with less access to electronic information sources.

Commenter Name: Michael Schon Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0183-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

EPA should clarify that state agencies may continue to provide public notice of proposed permits through local publications.

PCA supports EPA’s proposal to allow states to meet public notice requirements through a state agency’s website. 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,358. However, EPA should retain the states’ ability to meet those requirements through local publications. Some communities are less connected to online sources of information than others and expect to see notice of permitting actions that may affect them in their local paper publications. States should retain the ability to provide information in the traditional manner if preferred given the makeup of the affected communities.

Commenter Name: Cory Pomeroy Commenter Affiliation: Texas Oil and Gas Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0188-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

Finally, TXOGA is concerned that the proposal introduces uncertainty on several issues including public notice requirements and the revised definition of "Whole Effluent Toxicity."

4-2 4.b - Public Notice Requirements - General (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Timothy Pohle Commenter Affiliation: Airlines for America Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0189-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

Reformation of application forms and updated public notification practices fit well within this paradigm.

Commenter Name: William J. Canary Commenter Affiliation: Business Council of Alabama (BCA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0245-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

Additional Proposed Provisions that Will Likely Raise Permitting Fees

EPA has included in the Proposed Rule a number of requirements that will further strain the limited resources of permitting authorities. To comply with them, these authorities will likely look to pass through the additional associated costs onto permit applicants. For this reason, BCA opposes the public notice and permit fact sheet requirements set out in the Proposed Rule. Specifically, BCA believes EPA should do away with the prescriptive fact sheet requirements the agency has proposed for 40 C.F.R. § 124.56, as well as the requirement in § 124.10 that final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments be posted on the permitting authority's website for the entirety of the permit term.

Commenter Name: Jennifer C. Chavez Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0411-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

(1) Public notice and opportunity to comment on EPA’s action.

At a bare minimum, the final rule must require EPA to provide public notice of its decision to invoke the process for designating an expired permit as “proposed.” Notice to the public should be provided at the same time the EPA regional office provides the state and permittee the initial

4-3 4.b - Public Notice Requirements - General (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments notice of its intent to designate an administratively continued as proposed. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,356/3. To facilitate public participation, the rule should allow no fewer than 60 days for public comment on that decision. This public comment period will enable local interested parties to support and supplement EPA’s administrative record basis for invoking the “proposed permit” process, and to provide relevant information about local water quality conditions.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 39

Comment Excerpt:

Regarding the Note to paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of §122.10, the TCEQ is concerned that this note will establish a new authority for the EPA to object to the adequacy of the method of notice used by the state. The TCEQ recommends removing this note from the rule.

Commenter Name: Paulina Williams Commenter Affiliation: Texas Industry Project (TIP) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0445-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

1 TIP also supports PCA’s comments regarding the definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity, public notice, and the provisions regarding latitude and longitude. TIP is thus commenting on a limited subset of the Proposed Rules, which should not be construed as support of any other portion of the Proposed Rules.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(iv) to allow permitting authorities to provide public notice of the NPDES permitting actions described in 40 CFR 124.10(a)(1) on the permitting authority’s publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(i). The EPA is also finalizing the regulatory note encouraging the permitting authority to ensure that the method(s) of public notice used effectively informs all interested communities and allows access to the permitting process for those seeking to participate. In addition, where the permitting authority chooses to use online

4-4 4.b - Public Notice Requirements - General (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments public notice for a draft permit, the EPA is finalizing the requirement to post the draft permit and fact sheet on the permitting authority’s publicly available website for the duration of the public comment period. However, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement that a permitting authority post the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments on the website for the entire term of the permit if it chooses to use online public notice.

The EPA acknowledges the one comment excerpt in the comment code that expresses general support for the EPA’s effort to update the application forms and public notification practices. It lends support to the EPA’s view that this first final rule modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment.

The EPA acknowledges the one comment excerpt in the comment code that suggests the proposed revisions to the public notice requirements introduce uncertainty. It is the EPA’s view that this first final rule, which includes final revisions to the public notice requirements, modernizes and clarifies the NPDES regulations. While the comment excerpt expresses general concern, it does not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule. As such, the EPA is not able to provide a substantive response.

One comment expressed concern that the proposed revisions would further strain the limited resources of permitting authorities, which may cause permitting authorities to pass the additional associated costs onto permit applicants. Additionally, this comment suggested that the EPA not finalize the proposed requirement in 40 CFR 124.10 for final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments to be posted on the permitting authority's website for the entirety of the permit term. Based on the comments received from permitting authorities concerned with the most effective use of their resources, the Agency is not finalizing the requirement to maintain the permit documentation (e.g., final permit, fact sheet, response to comments) on the website for the term of the permit. Instead, where the permitting authority opts for online public notice of a draft permit, as defined in 40 CFR 122.2, the final rule requires that the draft permit and fact sheet be posted on the permitting authority’s website for the duration of the public comment period, when the public’s need for timely access to permitting documents is the greatest. This posting is in addition to meeting the existing requirements in 40 CFR 124.10(d), which outline the required contents of public notices for all NPDES actions described in 40 CFR 124.10(a)(1). This additional requirement for posting draft permits and fact sheets will ensure that interested members of the public are not only aware of the information contained in the public notice document but are able to view the contents of the draft permit and fact sheet online, as well. Typically, permitting authorities provide copies of final permits upon request. The EPA’s information collection request for this final rulemaking (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018- 0629), as summarized in the preamble to the final rule, estimates that the final revisions will result in a reduction in burden and costs to permitting authorities and the regulated community.

B. Ability to Continue Providing Public Notice in Local Publications

4-5 4.b - Public Notice Requirements - General (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Some commenters supported the EPA’s proposal to allow public notice via websites and suggested that states retain the ability to provide public notice via local publications, especially in communities with less access to electronic information sources. The EPA agrees, and permitting authorities continue to have the option to publish public notices in local daily and weekly newspaper publications. The EPA’s decision to allow an option for online public notice does not alter the existing requirements of 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(i) if a permitting authority chooses to continue the traditional method of providing notice of an NPDES permit action in a newspaper publication.

Although neither the CWA nor its implementing regulations specify the best or preferred method for providing notice to the public, 40 CFR 25.3(c)(7) specifically emphasizes that agencies should “use all feasible means to create opportunities for public participation, and to stimulate and support participation.” The EPA acknowledges that permitting authorities need flexibility to provide public notice of the NPDES permitting actions described in 40 CFR 124.10(a)(1) in a way that reaches their public in a way that is most effective for their communities (e.g., newspaper publication, internet notice, or a combination of these methods). The final rule allows the online public notice as an option for permitting authorities; however, permitting authorities may choose not to use this option and instead continue providing public notice in local publications (e.g., daily or weekly newspapers). The option to public notice via website or local publications will allow the permitting authority to effectively inform all interested communities and allow access to the permitting process for those seeking to participate.

The EPA acknowledges that some communities may not be best served via online public notice. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the regulatory note that encourages the permitting authority to ensure that the method(s) of public notice used effectively informs all interested communities and allows access to the permitting process for those seeking to participate. As stated in the preamble to the final rule, the EPA expects newspaper notices to be used in areas that continue to be best served by printed publications with NPDES-regulated entities owned or operated by identifiable populations (e.g., Amish, Mennonite, and Hutterite) who do not use certain technologies (e.g., computers or electricity) and areas known or likely to include members of identifiable populations who do not have access to or use certain technologies. The EPA also expects newspaper notices to be used in areas known or likely to have limited broadband internet access, areas with underserved or economically disadvantaged communities, areas with prolonged electrical system outrages, and during large-scale disasters (e.g., hurricanes).

C. Comment About the Regulatory Note to 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(iv)

One comment expressed concern that the proposed regulatory note would provide the EPA with new authority to object to the adequacy of a state’s public notice method. The comment suggested that the EPA not finalize the regulatory note. The EPA disagrees that the regulatory note provides the EPA with such new authority: the note by its own terms is an “encouragement” or reminder rather than a requirement. The note is a complement to 40 CFR 124.10(c)(4), which states that public notice of NPDES actions listed in 40 CFR 124.10(a)(1) shall be given by “[a]ny other method reasonably calculated to give actual notice of the action in question to the persons potentially affected by it, including press releases or any other forum or medium to elicit public participation.” Therefore, permitting authorities are required to consider the appropriate method

4-6 4.b - Public Notice Requirements - General (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments or methods to best inform and engage with their public and ensure their public will be given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the NDPES permitting process.

In addition, the EPA’s decision to allow an option for online public notice does not in any way affect the requirements of 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1), which require that a copy of the notice must be mailed directly to persons who have joined the appropriate mailing list. 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(ix)(C) requires notification of the public of the opportunity to be put on the mailing list through periodic publication in the public press and in such publications as regional and state funded newsletters, environmental bulletins, or state law journals. Further, the EPA’s revisions to the public notice requirements for certain enumerated actions in 40 CFR 124.10 do not affect the notice requirements for “issuance” of final permit decisions, and the EPA is in no way suggesting that internet posting fulfills the separate final permit decision notice requirements of 40 CFR 124.15.

D. The EPA Is Not Taking Final Action on These Proposed Revisions at This Time

Some comment excerpts in this comment code refer to proposed revisions to the definition of proposed permit (40 CFR 122.2); the definition of whole effluent toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2); application requirements for latitude and longitude (40 CFR 122.21); objection to administratively continued permits (40 CFR 123.44); and fact sheet requirements (40 CFR 124.56). The EPA is not taking final action at this time on these proposed revisions. The EPA received numerous comments on these topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to these topics, the EPA is not responding to these comments at this time.

4-7 4.b - Public Notice Requirements - General (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

Commenter Name: Beth McGee Commenter Affiliation: Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0045-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

CBF strongly supports this provision that would allow permitting agencies to put public notices on the Web in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement, except in those circumstances when the affected communities do not use certain technologies (e.g., Amish).

Commenter Name: David Childs Commenter Affiliation: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0046-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

For over two decades, the State of Florida has administered its NPDES permitting program.1 EPA’s involvement is limited. The Clean Water Act and a State-EPA “Memorandum of Agreement” delineate EPA’s particular oversight responsibilities.2 Courts observe that this State- level program administration is “indicative of Congress's intent to ‘recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of states to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.’”3 Indeed, it is “beyond argument” that the judiciary “should construe the [Clean Water] Act to place maximum responsibility for permitting decisions on the states where the EPA has certified a NPDES permitting program.”4 In this regard, the Clean Water Act’s cooperative federalism structure is unbalanced, with the weight of authority vested in the states and not EPA. Several aspects of this rulemaking further these Congressional goals, such as the proposal to allow website publication in lieu of newspaper publication to serve public notice on permitting decisions.

1 See 60 Fed. Reg. 25,718 (May 12, 1995). 2 See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Florida and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Nov. 30, 2007), available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Operating_Agreement/Agreements/EPA/NPDES_MOA_Betwee n_State_of_Fl_and_USEPA.pdf. 3 Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Va. State Water Control Bd., 495 F. Supp. 1229, 1232 (E.D. Va. 1980). 4 Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. EPA, 890 F.2d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 1989).

4-8 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Robert S. Lynch Commenter Affiliation: Irrigation & Electrical Districts' Association of Arizona (IEDA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0076-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

First, we are concerned about the proposed change to public notice requirements. Allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, tribes with certified programs and territories to use websites exclusively for public notice concerning National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting activities is entirely too restrictive. If EPA is truly concerned about maintaining “flexibility in reaching the public through a variety of methods” (81 Fed.Reg. at 31358), then it must realize that websites, however endemic, are flawed sources of public notice. EPA says that the proposed revision “is intended to supplement and expand EPA’s efforts to reach communities through a variety of methods.” Ibid. However, EPA also recognizes that there are areas that have limited broadband internet access, areas where certain technologies are not in use and times, including emergency conditions, where website notice would be ineffective. 81 Fed.Reg. at 31359. EPA does not include in its references remote rural areas of the West, especially Indian reservations and areas of Western states where much of the land ownership is held by the United States itself. Website notice is now and will be ineffective in these areas and under those conditions. We see no problem with adding websites as a means of notification but giving it legal exclusivity is entirely inappropriate for much of the rural U.S. Moreover, websites can often be difficult to access even if they are technically accessible. EPA should amend the proposal in 40 CFR § 124.10(c) to add website notice as an additional method, not an exclusive method.

Commenter Name: Joe Giudice Commenter Affiliation: City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental Programs Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0095-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

The COP is in support of utilizing web sites in lieu of the newspaper publication for public notice requirements.

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

4-9 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

ADEM strongly supports allowing permitting authorities to have the option to place public notices for any NPDES individual permits (major or non-major) or NPDES master general permits (major or non-major) on its website in lieu of publishing the notice in newspapers. The regulations should allow each permitting authority to choose which option for publishing the public notice is best for their needs. There may be some permitting authorities that do not have the ability at this time to comply with the requirement to publish the notices online. For those that have the ability, the cost savings of publishing all public notices on website will be considerable. The cost of publishing public notices in newspaper continues to increase as publishers try to offset the loss of revenue due to newspapers' dwindling circulation. Since the number of non-major permits is much greater than the number major permits, the benefits of extending the option to non-major permits would have a greater cost savings to permitting authorities. Ln addition, the public would prefer to be able to see all permit public notices in the same location.

Commenter Name: Jaime C. Gaggero, Director Commenter Affiliation: Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0099-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

The proposed rule allows NPDES States to public notice NPDES major permits and general permits on the agency's website in lieu of the requirement of publishing the public notice in a daily or weekly newspaper. For agencies intending to utilize their websites to public notice NPDES major permits and general permits, additional requirements are mandated by EPA. In addition to the public notice, the agencies are required to place on the website the draft permit, and fact sheet during the public comment period. Following the public comment period, the agencies would be expected to also maintain on the website the final permit, fact sheet, and responses to any comments, until the permit is reissued or terminated. We question the value of retaining and archiving this information on the website for extended periods, e.g., more than 6 months, following issuance/reissuance of the permit

If KDHE chose to publish the public notices of NPDES permits on our website, we would still be required by State statute and regulation to officially publish the public notices in the Kansas Register. Without changing current statutes and regulations, no economy would be realized by KDHE for utilizing the agency website for this purpose. The choice as to whether to utilize the agency's website to public notice major NPDES permits and general permits or at some point in the future to expand this provision to address non-major permits as well should remain the purview of the agency and not be mandated by EPA.

4-10 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

While some economies could be achieved using the agency's website for publishing permit public notices, there are also costs associated with the new requirements for archiving the public notice, the draft and final permits, the fact sheet and responses to any comments during the public comment period through the term of the permit. The increased manpower for creating and maintaining the website and the required increase in server storage for archived materials have capital and operating costs that would exceed any cost savings realized from foregoing the newspaper publications.

It is unclear whether EPA's reference to "general permit" is associated with the master general permit only or whether EPA will also require using the agency's website to public notice Notices of intent (NOis) submitted and authorized in conjunction with the issued master general permit. KDHE would be opposed to a requirement for listing and archiving NO Is because we do not have the funding or man power to support this proposal.

Commenter Name: John C. Pierson Commenter Affiliation: Department of the Navy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0157-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

Proposed Revisions to Part 124

Proposed Requirement or Section Addressed: On page 31358 of the Federal Register notice, EPA requests comments on an alternative option for revising 40 CFR.124.1 0( c) that would require NPDES permitting authorities to publicly post all NPDES permits and hearings on the permitting authority's website. This posting may include permit application documents per earlier explanation in the Federal Register.

Comment: To accommodate DoD operational security concerns, this needs to include an optional statement for some entities.

Discussion: It is unclear at this time whether or not certain aspects of our application and supporting documentation, such as stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), contain information that should not be made publicly available per operational security concerns. Maps depicting storage locations of hazardous materials, fuel, and outfall piping may constitute a risk to our operational security. Having to provide redacted or reduced versions of these documents to meet both operational security concerns and EPA requirements is not only additional cost, but often impossible. Redacted documents will not likely meet the EPA application requirements.

Recommendation: Recommend allowing for certain federal activities to just post an executive summary or limited fact sheet in lieu of supporting documents or allow for DoD to opt out of the required publication as necessary for operational security concerns.

4-11 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Jon M. Stomp, III, P.E. Commenter Affiliation: Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0158-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notice Requirements· 40 CFR 124.10(c). EPA proposes to allow public notice of permitting actions major individual permits and general permits on the permitting authority's website in lieu of publishing in a newspaper. The Water Authority supports this change for all permitting actions and the clarification that if the permitting authority uses the website for some postings, it should post all notices there to maintain one repository.

Commenter Name: Heather R. Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: Washington State Department of Ecology Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0159-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment Excerpt:

Permit Objection, Documentation and Process Efficiencies

Public Notice Requirements (40 CFR 124.10(c))

Ecology supports allowing states to provide public notice of permitting actions for NPDES major individual and general permits on the permitting authority’s publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement. We already provide public notice for most of our major permits on our website. This was done with a major agency commitment, significant cost, and staff time.

In Washington State, state statute requires public notice to be made in local newspapers. Therefore, to completely move away from providing printed public notice a change must be made to state statute. It is Ecology’s hope that this change in the CFR will encourage state lawmakers to make a similar change to state statute.

Commenter Name: Sarah Jane Utley Commenter Affiliation: Harris County and Harris County Flood Control District Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0166-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

4-12 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The Proposed Rule allows for permitting authorities to provide public notice of permitting actions for NPDES major individual and general permits on the permitting authorities’ publically available Web site in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement.

Harris County and HCFCD support and encourage the adoption of this provision of the Proposed Rule. Newspaper publication can be a timely and expensive endeavor, which will be alleviated by allowing some of the publication requirements to be fulfilled on-line. Additionally, it would provide for much easier access to the public of permitting information. Newspapers are no longer people’s primary source of information, as most members of the public are more likely to seek information online than a newspaper.

Commenter Name: Ed Thomas Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0167-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

TFI Supports the Revisions to Public Notice Requirements

EPA has proposed allowing permitting authorities to provide public notice of permitting actions for NPDES major individual and general permits on the permitting authority’s publicly available Web site in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement. Many regulatory public notice requirements have been revised to allow availability on the web (such as the consumer confidence reports required under the Safe Drinking Water Act). TFI believes this is a valuable opportunity to decrease burden and streamline the permitting process.

Commenter Name: Richard Metcalf Commenter Affiliation: Louisianna Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0168-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Mid-Continent supports the option to allow states to adopt a web-based public notice system. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has maintained a robust web-based public notice site for years. It is easily accessible from the LDEQ’s home page and interested parties. Interested parties can also sign up for e-mail notifications. The LDEQ’s web site is http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/default.asp.

Many permits in Louisiana are in remote communities whose newspaper of record are published on a weekly basis or are a paper far from the community that may not be subscribed to by the

4-13 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments interested party. Sometimes, showing proof the paper public notice was published delays actions on the permit for two weeks or more.

This option also saves money for the permittee as they do not have the newspaper publishing costs as well as the agencies as they have less submittals of “proof of publishing” to manage and file.

Commenter Name: John Pastore Commenter Affiliation: Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0169-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

SCAP supports EPA’s goal to align the NPDES regulations with the Clean Water Act (CWA) statute; eliminate regulatory and application form inconsistencies; improve permit documentation, transparency, and oversight; clarify existing regulations; and remove outdated provisions. Specifically, SCAP supports proposed revisions allowing for public notice of NPDES permits to be posted on the permitting authority’s public website, as well as changes to improve the level of detail and information included in fact sheets to facilitate more transparent and effective documentation of permitting decisions and determinations concerning NPDES permits.

Commenter Name: John Pastore Commenter Affiliation: Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0169-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

§124.10 - Public notice of permit actions and public comment period

Public Notice Requirements

SCAP supports the proposed changes to the public notice posting requirements as described under §124.10 to allow for public notices of major NPDES permits to be posted on the permitting authority’s public website, in lieu of posting in a daily or weekly newspaper. SCAP recommends that all notices related to NPDES permits (major and minor permits) and hearings be allowed to meet public notification requirements by online postings.

4-14 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Peter Goodman Commenter Affiliation: Commonwealth of Kentucky Division of Water Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0172-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

40 CFR 124.10- Public Notices

The Division supports e-notification for permits as a more effective and cost savings means of providing real and timely notice of pending permit actions to the public. Also, the elimination of newspaper notification for permit actions could provide on-going direct annual cost savings.

Finally, due to the significant resources that will be required for state implementation of the federal rule, the Division respectfully requests that the EPA delay implementation for at least two years to give states adequate time to affect the required legal changes and allocate its resources appropriately.

Commenter Name: Jon Tack Commenter Affiliation: Iowa Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0173-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment Excerpt:

The Iowa DNR supports the proposed revision to the public notice requirements, as posting public notices for major permits on the permitting authority’s public website will save time and money for major permittees.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Nevertheless, there are some aspects of the Proposed Rule with which Southern Company agrees. Specifically, Southern Company supports EPA’s proposal to allow permitting authorities

4-15 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments to provide public notice of permitting actions for NPDES major individual and general permits on the permitting authority's publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement. This proposed revision would allow for a more efficient process and improved access for the public and regulated community alike.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 42

Comment Excerpt:

XII. EPA’s Proposed Public Notice Requirements (40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c))

Southern Company supports EPA’s proposal to allow permitting authorities to provide public notice of permitting actions for NPDES major individual and general permits on the permitting authority's publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement. This proposed revision would allow for a more efficient process and improved access for the public and regulated community alike. However, we question why EPA added that, if this option is selected by a permitting authority, the regulator must also publish the draft permit and fact sheet during the comment period and then publish the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments, keeping them there until the permit is terminated or reissued.55 EPA provides no reasoning for these additional requirements.

Commenter Name: Nina Bell Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment Excerpt:

We strongly support EPA’s proposed revisions requiring states to post all draft permits and fact sheets on the website during the public comment period as well as all final permits, fact sheets, and responses to comments during the entirety of the permit term. We would add that the way that Washington makes all of its past permits and past fact sheets available is much preferred over just keeping the latest documents. Frequently the history of the facility, the status of the waterbody, the rationale behind certain permit limits and monitoring choices is very helpful to people who are reviewing and commenting on permits. Given that the time period for analysis of proposed permits and writing comments is relatively short, it would be best to not require the

4-16 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments public to have to ask for such documents, when they can be easily maintained on-line. Likewise, the short timeframe in which a new permit can be appealed is one where the public should continue to have access to the documents pertaining to the previous permit. If Washington can do this, any state can.

It is our experience that states have switched to email as a primary method for sending copies of notices to the public under 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c)(1)(ix). It is not our experience that states honor the requirements of that section. The State of Washington comes to mind. EPA’s regulations should require states to include on each web pages of state agencies that issue NPDES permits a clear method by which the public can sign up for emails that contain opportunities for public comment. For example, Oregon has this. Washington has nothing on its website, let alone a method for signing up for permit lists. Most people are not familiar with the requirements of federal regulations that require states to offer the public the opportunity to be on a mandatory mailing list. If EPA is interested in reaching more people in affected communities it will insist on websites that: (1) present information in a clear and timely manner, with an adequately large type size; (2) do not require knowing search terms to find basic information on opportunities to comment; (3) provide for adequate time to respond to such opportunities; and (4) inform people of their rights (e.g., to be placed on an email list for notifications). Not only has Washington not always responded by placing us on requested lists, but their system for opting into various mailing lists does not even include NPDES permits.

EPA asks if we support requiring public notice of all NPDES permits on the agencies’ websites. We do, so long as it is not a substitution for the email notices. Our experience with Washington's compendium of public comment opportunities is that it is difficult to read and not accurate. Searches conducted there do not result in information upon which someone can rely. While they may have fixed this by now it demonstrates that multiple avenues are essential given that websites can malfunction, emails can never make it to their destination, and time for commenting is limited. There is no reason why it would take five years for states to implement this, as suggested by EPA. It’s not rocket science. It’s not even as hard as writing a permit.

Commenter Name: Kevin Frederick Commenter Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0195-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notice Requirements (40 CFR 124.10(c))- Rather than requiring it, EPA should allow states to publish their proposed permits and fact sheets on their website to meet the public notice requirement. EPA should not require states that provide notice via their website to maintain web access to the permit for the entire life ofthe permit.

4-17 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Susan Hauser Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0198-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

Gathering information about permit applications can be very difficult for citizens in Central Appalachia. I support the EPA’s proposal to issue public notice of permit actions online, rather than in the newspaper. Further, I suggest that this change be made a requirement so that citizens can take a more active role in the permitting process.

Commenter Name: Marty Haroldson Commenter Affiliation: North Dakota Department of Health Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0236-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

The Department would like EPA to clarify what documents specifically need to be posted on a state's website. We are required by statute to publish public notices in the local newspaper and we currently post them on our website. The Department is also concerned that notice of intents are going to be made mandatory to be posted to our website. This requirement would increase the amount of time and funding needed to comply.

Commenter Name: Brenna Mannion Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0240-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notice Requirements (40 CFR 124.10)

The proposal makes minor revisions that would allow permitting authorities to public notice both general and individual NPDES permit actions via a publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement. NACWA members overwhelmingly support the proposed changes to the public notice posting requirements as described to allow for public notices of major NPDES permits to be posted on the permitting authority’s public website, in lieu of posting in a daily or weekly newspaper. In many cases, permitting authorities already use their websites to publicly notice their permitting activities, and in regions with near ubiquitous connectivity, there would be considerable cost savings to eliminating the newspaper notification.

4-18 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

That being said, EPA should not require NPDES permitting authorities to public notice all NPDES notice and hearings on their website.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

• Public Notice Requirements

The undersigned organizations strongly urge EPA to strengthen the public notice requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c) to require that states post public notices of draft permit renewals and modifications both on the state permitting agency’s website and in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area. Requiring permit authorities to post all NPDES permit and hearing notifications on a publicly available website will not only bring the NPDES program into the 21st Century, it will greatly improve and enhance public access to critical permit information. At the same time, maintaining the current newspaper publication requirement is important to ensure that state agencies are still taking steps to affirmatively reach out to the public in advance of renewing or modifying permits, not simply providing notice to those individuals who already seek out such information and know where to find it.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 52

Comment Excerpt:

II. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

The undersigned organizations strongly urge EPA to strengthen the public notice requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c) to require that states post public notices of draft permit renewals and modifications both on the state permitting agency’s website and in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area. Requiring permit authorities to post all NPDES permit and hearing notifications on a publicly available website will not only bring the NPDES program into the 21st Century, it will greatly improve and enhance public access to critical permit information. At the same time, maintaining the current newspaper publication requirement is important to ensure that state agencies are still taking steps to affirmatively reach out to the public in advance of renewing or modifying permits, not simply providing notice to those individuals who already seek out such information and know where to find it.

4-19 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

First, and most importantly, we agree with EPA’s assessment that using the web to share all permit information electronically (draft permit, hearing notice, factsheet, final permit, etc.) over the lifetime of the permit will significantly improve public access and in many cases could result in financial and time savings to the permit authority.191 Making all permit information electronically available will also make it easier for organizations to disseminate information to their members, coalition partners and other stakeholders. Considering that most (if not all) permitting authorities already maintain a public website, and most already post at least some permit information there, the costs of requiring that such information be posted on the web for all permits are likely to be minimal for most permitting authorities. This is equally likely to be true for “non-major” NPDES permits as it is for “major” NPDES permits. Accordingly, we recommend that EPA require for all NPDES permits that agencies post public notices and permit information on their websites. We also recommend that, given the likely minimal costs and burdens associated with this requirement, that it go into effect within 180 days after this rule is finalized.

Second, while we agree with EPA that internet posting of public notices and other permit information is likely to foster significantly greater public participation than the existing newspaper publication requirement for public notices, and should therefore be required for all NPDES permits, we strongly urge EPA not to eliminate the existing newspaper publication requirement for those jurisdictions that opt to post permit information online. As EPA notes in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Clean Water Act provides as one of its core policy goals that public participation “shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.”192 The proposed rule’s allowance for states to opt out of publishing notices in newspapers in favor of only making them available to those who visit agency websites would not be consistent with this goal of encouraging and assisting greater participation by the public. At best, such a change would be two steps forward, but one step back.

As EPA acknowledges in the preamble to the proposed rule,193 the need for a newspaper publication requirement for public notice, as well as other means of affirmative agency outreach, is especially acute in communities where access to the internet is not widespread, as well as communities that do not use computers at all (such as Amish or Mennonite communities). However, even in areas and among communities where internet and computer use are widespread, requiring newspaper publication of public notices for every permit will undeniably reach segments of the population who would be missed if permit information were only made available to those who actively seek it out on agency websites. EPA’s justifications in the preamble for allowing states to opt out of newspaper publication if they commit to online notice are unpersuasive and not well-supported. EPA alludes to potential cost savings to permitting agencies from eliminating the newspaper publication requirement for public notices but makes no effort to quantify them or describe them in detail. Nor does EPA appear to consider, or make any effort to describe, the benefits of retaining the newspaper publication requirement in addition to an internet posting requirement. Rather, the preamble to the proposed rule appears to present the choice between newspaper publication of public notices and an internet posting requirement as an “either/or,” when it could just as easily be a “both/and” that would undeniably promote and encourage greater public participation than either requirement alone. EPA fails altogether to analyze this issue.

4-20 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

EPA’s analysis of the environmental justice implications of eliminating a newspaper publication requirement for public notices and its potential impact on underserved communities is similarly deficient. EPA states in the preamble of the proposed rule that it “carefully evaluated” this issue, but then only identifies two reports that it consulted in its evaluation.194 The first report, from Native Public Media, does not support elimination of the newspaper publication requirement. On the contrary, the report simply finds that among respondents to a survey conducted of native tribe members, 68% said that the internet is one of their top two sources for news about national and international news, while 48% said that newspapers is one of their of top two sources for such news.195 This survey did not address in any way its respondents’ use of the internet or newspapers to find out information about environmental permits, let alone ask questions that would provide a meaningful basis for drawing conclusions concerning replacing newspaper publication of public notices with online posting, as opposed to requiring that both means of public notice be used.

The second report cited in EPA’s discussion of environmental justice, from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, recommends that EPA “[e]xpand other forms of communication” – i.e., to require permitting agency efforts beyond newspaper publication – to notify the public of permit hearings and other meetings.196 The report finds that the newspaper publication requirement for public notices “should not be counted on to communicate” with environmental justice communities, and that additional efforts are needed to ensure that EPA and other permitting agencies effectively engage with those communities. Id. The undersigned organizations strongly support these recommendations of the Advisory Council, which are consistent with our comments above that internet posting of public notices and other permit information should be required for all NPDES permits because newspaper publication of public notices, without more, is inadequate. But the Advisory Council’s report does not recommend that newspaper publication of public notices be eliminated; rather, the Council recommends that communication be expanded to other media, including the internet. EPA’s citation of this report to justify allowing states to opt out of newspaper notice is not supported by the Council’s report. Rather, EPA should require states both to post public notices and other NPDES permit information online and publish public notices in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area, in order to maximize public participation and dissemination of critical permit information.

In addition to the above recommendations, we request that EPA make the following additional improvements to the public notice provisions in 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c):

• EPA should incorporate into its proposed new language for 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c)(2)(iv) a requirement that online public notices and NPDES permit information be accessible from a page that is directly and prominently linked from the main page of the permitting agency’s website and located on a web page exclusively devoted to such postings. Agency web sites are often difficult to navigate. For some permitting agencies, only sophisticated users are able to find public notices and other permitting information posted online. Sometimes finding such information requires mastering an online database or “virtual filing cabinet” that is difficult to use. This creates unnecessary obstacles to public participation. Requiring permitting agencies to create a web page devoted exclusively to posting NPDES permit information and public notices, and directly linking to that page from the main page of its website, would create only a minimal

4-21 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments burden on permitting agencies and, in some cases, would significantly increase the public's ease of accessing this information.

191 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,358-59.

192 Id. at 31,358 (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1251(e)).

193 Id. at 31,359.

194 Id.

195 Native Public Media, New Media Technology, and Internet Use in Indian Country 10 (2009), available at http://www.atalm.org/sites/default/files/NPM- NAF_New_Media_Study_2009_small.pdf.

196 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Enhancing Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting Programs 20-21 (Apr. 2011), available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/enhancing-environmental-justice-epa- permittingprograms.

Commenter Name: Julie Nahrgang Commenter Affiliation: Water Environment Association of Texas (WEAT), Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies (TACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0259-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notice (40 CFR § 124.10(c))

While digitizing standard processes is generally favorable as it is more efficient and can reach a broader audience, the proposed revision to 40 CFR § 124.10(c) relating to the ability to publish notice online in lieu of newspaper publication would be ineffectual in Texas absent a statutory change. Pursuant to Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code, the TCEQ must publish a newspaper notice of all actions taken on an NPDES permit. As a statutory mandate, the proposed revision to 40 CFR § 124.10(c) is in conflict with state law, and TCEQ would have to seek a statutory amendment to enable it to implement the proposed revision. In Texas, such an amendment would, at a minimum, take two years to accomplish because the legislature meets biennially. Thus, for states such as Texas, the revision would be meaningless.

4-22 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Robert W. Johnson Commenter Affiliation: National Water Resources Association (NWRA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0260-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

Proposed Revisions to Public Notice Requirements

NWRA and its members are concerned about the EPA’s proposed revision to public notice requirements. EPA proposes revising 40 CFR 124.10(c) to allow the permitting authority to provide public notice on the permitting authority’s publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement. We are concerned that this proposed modification would reduce public participation in the permitting process. Members of the general public are unlikely to regularly check regulator’s websites. However, many members of the general public regularly read local news publications. Removing pubic notifications from local newspapers could inadvertently reduce public input from the communities that could be most directly affected by proposed permit or project. In addition, in many areas in the U.S. Internet access is still not universally available or can be cost prohibitively expensive. This is especially true in rural and tribal areas. A 2015 report by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found that Americans living in rural areas and on tribal lands disproportionately lack access to high-speed Internet. FCC’s data indicate that, as of December 2013, high-speed Internet was only available to 37 percent of households on tribal lands and 47 percent of U.S. households in rural areas. We do not oppose the utilization of a regulatory agencies website as one method of information dissemination. However, we do not think that it is in the best interest of the general public, the regulated community, or the EPA to solely rely on websites to relay information about agency proposals. EPA should amend the proposal in 40 CFR 124.10(c) to add website notice as a method of notification in addition to publication in local newspapers.

Commenter Name: Steve Spacek Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0290-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

I also support better documentation of variances requested by permit seekers, and to issue public notice of permit actions online, rather than only in print newspapers

4-23 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Cynthia Patterson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0294-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s proposal to issue public notice of permit actions online will allow local citizens to gather information and take a more active role in the permitting process, which directly affects where they live.

Commenter Name: Gayle Janzen Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0296-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

It's long past time to take actions to protect Central Appalachia's waterways from the toxic mining company who pretty much can dump their mining waste wherever with little oversight. We all deserve to have clean water to drink yet the citizens of Appalachia have had their lives and health ruined because the powerful coal industry is so poorly regulated. The citizens have every right to know exactly what is in the water they are drinking so your proposed changes to list public notices regarding permits online instead of in the newspapers, will give the citizens more say about the permitting process so they can take the necessary actions to protect their water supply.

Commenter Name: Susanne Ellis Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0298-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

I support the EPA’s proposal to issue public notice of permit actions online as well as in the newspaper, so that citizens can have another option and will take a more active role in the permitting process.

Commenter Name: Jennifer C. Chavez Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice et al.

4-24 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0411-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment Excerpt:

V. Changes to Existing Application Requirements

A. Public notice requirements

Our organizations strongly urge EPA to strengthen the public notice requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c) to require that states post public notices of draft permit renewals and modifications both on the state permitting agency’s website and in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area. Requiring permit authorities to post all NPDES permit and hearing notifications on a publicly available website will not only bring the NPDES program into the 21st Century, it will greatly improve and enhance public access to critical permit information. At the same time, maintaining the current newspaper publication requirement is important to ensure that state agencies are still taking steps to affirmatively reach out to the public in advance of renewing or modifying permits, not simply providing notice to those individuals who already seek out such information and know where to find it.

First, and most importantly, we agree with EPA’s assessment that using the web to share all permit information electronically (draft permit, hearing notice, factsheet, final permit, etc.) over the lifetime of the permit will significantly improve public access and in many cases could result in financial and time savings to the permit authority. CITE. Making all permit information electronically available will also make it easier for organizations to disseminate information to their members, coalition partners and other stakeholders. Considering that most (if not all) permitting authorities already maintain a public website, and most already post at least some permit information there, the costs of requiring that such information be posted on the web for all permits are likely to be minimal for most permitting authorities. This is equally likely to be true for “non‐major” NPDES permits as it is for “major” NPDES permits. Accordingly, we recommend that EPA require for all NPDES permits that agencies post public notices and permit information on their websites. We also recommend that, given the likely minimal costs and burdens associated with this requirement, that it go into effect within 180 days after this rule is finalized.

Second, while we agree with EPA that internet posting of public notices and other permit information is likely to foster significantly greater public participation than the existing newspaper publication requirement for public notices, and should therefore be required for all NPDES permits, we strongly urge EPA not to eliminate the existing newspaper publication requirement for those jurisdictions that opt to post permit information online. As EPA notes in the preamble to the proposed rule, CITE, the Clean Water Act provides as one of its core policy goals that public participation “shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(e). The proposed rule’s allowance for states to opt out of publishing notices in newspapers in favor of only making them available to those who visit agency websites would not be consistent with this goal of encouraging and assisting greater

4-25 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments participation by the public. At best, such a change would be two steps forward, but one step back.

As EPA acknowledges in the preamble to the proposed rule, CITE, the need for a newspaper publication requirement for public notice, as well as other means of affirmative agency outreach, is especially acute in communities where access to the internet is not widespread, as well as communities that do not use computers at all (such as Amish or Mennonite communities). However, even in areas and among communities where internet and computer use are widespread, requiring newspaper publication of public notices for every permit will undeniably reach segments of the population who would be missed if permit information were only made available to those who actively seek it out on agency websites.

EPA’s justifications in the preamble for allowing states to opt out of newspaper publication if they commit to online notice are unpersuasive and not well‐supported. EPA alludes to potential cost savings to permitting agencies from eliminating the newspaper publication requirement for public notices but makes no effort to quantify them or describe them in detail. Nor does EPA appear to consider, or make any effort to describe, the benefits of retaining the newspaper publication requirement in addition to an internet posting requirement. Rather, the preamble to the proposed rule appears to present the choice between newspaper publication of public notices and an internet posting requirement as an “either/or,” when it could just as easily be a “both/and” that would undeniably promote and encourage greater public participation than either requirement alone. EPA fails altogether to analyze this issue.

EPA’s analysis of the environmental justice implications of eliminating a newspaper publication requirement for public notices and its potential impact on underserved communities is similarly deficient. EPA states in the preamble of the proposed rule that it “carefully evaluated” this issue, but then only identifies two reports that it consulted in its evaluation. 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,359. The first report, from Native Public Media, does not support elimination of the newspaper publication requirement. On the contrary, the report simply finds that among respondents to a survey conducted of native tribe members, 68% said that the internet is one of their top two sources for news about national and international news, while 48% said that newspapers is one of their of top two sources for such news. Native Public Media, New Media Technology, and Internet Use in Indian Country (2009), at 10, available at http://www.atalm.org/sites/default/files/NPM‐ NAF_New_Media_Study_2009_small.pdf. This survey did not address in any way its respondents’ use of the internet or newspapers to find out information about environmental permits, let alone ask questions that would provide a meaningful basis for drawing conclusions concerning replacing newspaper publication of public notices with online posting, as opposed to requiring that both means of public notice be used.

The second report cited in EPA’s discussion of environmental justice, from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, recommends that EPA “[e]xpand other forms of communication” – i.e., to require permitting agency efforts beyond newspaper publication – to notify the public of permit hearings and other meetings. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Enhancing Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting Programs, at 20‐21, available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/enhancing‐environmental‐justice‐epa‐ permittingprograms. The report finds that the newspaper publication requirement for public

4-26 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments notices “cannot be counted on to communicate” with environmental justice communities, and that additional efforts are needed to ensure that EPA and other permitting agencies effectively engage with those communities. Id. Our organizations strongly support these recommendations of the Advisory Council, which are consistent with our comments above that internet posting of public notices and other permit information should be required for all NPDES permits because newspaper publication of public notices, without more, is inadequate. But the Advisory Council’s report does not recommend that newspaper publication of public notices be eliminated; rather, the Council recommends that communication be expanded to other media, including the internet. EPA’s citation of this report to justify allowing states to opt out of newspaper notice is not supported by the Council’s report. Rather, EPA should require states both to post public notices and other NPDES permit information online and publish public notices in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area, in order to maximize public participation and dissemination of critical permit information.

In addition to the above recommendations, we request that EPA make the following additional improvements to the public notice provisions in 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c):

• EPA should incorporate into its proposed new language for 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c)(2)(iv) a requirement that online public notices and NPDES permit information be accessible from a page that is directly and prominently linked from the main page of the permitting agency’s website and located on a web page exclusively devoted to such postings. Agency web sites are often difficult to navigate. For some permitting agencies, only sophisticated users are able to find public notices and other permitting information posted online. Sometimes finding such information requires mastering an online database or “virtual filing cabinet” that is difficult to use. This creates unnecessary obstacles to public participation. Requiring permitting agencies to create a web page devoted exclusively to posting NPDES permit information and public notices, and directly linking to that page from the main page of its website, would create only a minimal burden on permitting agencies and, in some cases, would significantly increase the public’s ease of accessing this information.

• EPA should revise 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c)(1) to require permitting agencies to provide the public with the option of signing up to receive public notices by email in lieu of receiving hard copies of notices by regular mail. As with internet posting of public notices and permit information, this is a “no‐brainer” that will significantly increase public access to permit information at minimal cost to permitting agencies. Notices by regular mail can take a week or more to arrive, cutting into the already very limited time allowed for comment on draft permits or to seek administrative review of final permit actions

Commenter Name: Deantha Crockett Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Miners Association (AMA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0415-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

4-27 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Finally, as a matter of process, AMA encourages EPA to consider all user groups when posting public notice. In the proposed rule, EPA suggests using the agency website to provide public notice rather than newspaper publication. While AMA can appreciate the efficiency and cost savings associated with posting public notice in electronic formats (websites, email lists, etc.), many Alaskans live or work in remote areas of the State in which internet is not available or severely hampered. AMA encourages EPA to ensure public notice is available to user groups in the most efficient method possible, but the agency must ensure the notice is still being delivered to all stakeholders.

Commenter Name: Adam Link Commenter Affiliation: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0416-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

CASA supports the proposed changes to the public notice posting requirements as described under § 124.10 to allow for public notices of major NPDES permits to be posted on the permitting authority’s public website, in lieu of posting in a daily or weekly newspaper. CASA recommends that all notices related to NPDES permits (major and minor permits) and hearings be allowed to meet public notification requirements by online postings.

Commenter Name: Janet A. Gillaspie Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (Oregon ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0426-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notice Requirements - 40 CFR 124.10(c)

EPA is proposing to allow permitting authorities to provide public notice on the permitting authority’s publicly available website and seeking comment on whether all permits, individual and general, be publicly noticed on the permitting authority’s website.

First, ACWA wants to acknowledge Oregon’s DEQ for its ability, consistency, and diligence for providing public notice through its website. It is very helpful and a valuable way to find useful information regarding permit renewal activities within the state of Oregon. Consequently, ACWA supports this proposal.

4-28 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

A few of EPA’s proposed regulatory changes represent positive improvements to the NPDES permitting program. For example, UWAG generally agrees with EPA’s proposal to allow the permitting authorities to provide public notices via the internet.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 35

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notice Requirements (40 CFR 124.10(c))

The TCEQ recommends that the EPA clarify that the Director has the discretion to choose the appropriate notice method.

As proposed a state authorized program could provide public notice of NPDES classified major facilities and general permits on its web site rather than through traditional means of newspaper publication. Texas statutes currently mandate newspaper publication for all categories of individual permits (minor and major classified facilities) as well as for general permits. The TCEQ supports this flexibility and recommends that web-based noticing be an optional requirement and not mandated.

Commenter Name: Lloyd R (Rusty) Cress, Jr. Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Chemical Industry Council Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0439-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notices -- 40 CFR 124.10

KyCIC supports the use of electronic notification for proposed permits as proposed by U.S. EPA. Use of technological resources is more effective, timely, and economical than traditional methods of public notification. KyCIC suggests that U.S. EPA refine the proposal to ensure that

4-29 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments electronic notifications are easily accessible by the public and, where appropriate, combined with methods that are available to those members of the public without computer access.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notice Requirements (40 CFR 124.10(c))

ACWA and the states support EPA allowing permitting authorities to provide public notice of permitting actions for NPDES major individual and general permits on the permitting authority’s publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement. Most states indicate they already provide public notice for all/most of their major draft permits on their websites, or are planning to in the near future. It should be noted that some states expressed concern that there appeared to be no clearly articulated distinction between the master general permit and the Notice of Intents (NOIs). While some states have chosen to make NOI’s publically available on their websites before coverage under a general permit commences, this did not occur without cost and staff resources.

Requiring states to provide public notice on their website (cf. allowing states the option to do so) burdens states currently working to implement other technology priority commitments (e.g., the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule). Several states indicated that they would likely need to change their regulations/statutes to allow them to do this. Likewise, more than one state has moved to a centralized IT Agency which sets priorities more than a year ahead of time. States prefer the flexibility and option to integrate this concept into their programs at a time that makes the most sense given other technology updates they are considering. It should also be noted that updated fact sheets are not required to be included with a final permit, but EPA is considering options that would require the state keep the fact sheet, response to comments, and final permit on the web for the entire permit term. While several states have identified cost savings in archiving permits online, EPA should not be adding mandates that will ultimate cost money and undermine efficiencies.

Recommendation 26: EPA should allow states to publish their proposed permits and fact sheets on their website to meet the public notice requirement. EPA should not require this type of publication/accessibility. EPA should not expand the required public notice provision beyond majors and minors, and should in no way imply that NOIs generally need to be publicly noticed. EPA should not require states that provide notice via their website to maintain web access to the permit for the entire permit term.

Recommendation 27: EPA should clarify how this provision might impact or be impacted by the proposed Small MS4 Remand Rule.

4-30 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Recommendation 28: EPA should provide significant flexibility for states to implement this provision over time, as the state deems appropriate.

Commenter Name: Jack C. Bender Commenter Affiliation: Utility Information Exchange of Kentucky Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0444-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notices- 40 CFR 124.10

UIEK supports the use of electronic notification for public notice of draft/proposed NPDES permits. This change will be equally effective for providing public notice and will save states significant time and monies.

Commenter Name: Claudio H. Ternieden Commenter Affiliation: Water Environment Federation (WEF) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0448-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

WEF supports EPA’s goal to align the NPDES regulations with the Clean Water Act (CWA) statute; eliminate regulatory and application form inconsistencies; improve permit documentation, transparency, and oversight; clarify existing regulations; and remove outdated provisions. Specifically, WEF supports proposed revisions allowing for public notice of NPDES permits to be posted on the permitting authority’s public website, as well as changes to improve the level of detail and information included in fact sheets to facilitate more transparent and effective documentation of permitting decisions and determinations concerning NPDES permits.

Commenter Name: Betsy Reilley Commenter Affiliation: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0450-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

Revised Public Notice Requirements (40 CFR 124.10(c)}

4-31 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

MWRA supports the proposed revisions to public notice requirements in 40 CFR 124.10(c). Replacing newspaper advertisements with web postings, is common sense and overdue.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment Excerpt:

The preamble of the rule (p. 31358, C. 1, 151 paragraph) proposes to revise 40 CFR 124.10(c) to allow permitting authorities to provide public notice of permitting actions for NPDES major individual and general permits on the permitting authority's publicly available Web site in lieu of the newspaper publication. LDEQ supports this amendment, allowing states the option of utilizing a paperless notification system for individual and master general permits. However, LDEQ does not support the requirement for states to utilize Web-based notifications for all NPDES/LPDES permits.

Commenter Name: Gil Rogers Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Rivers Alliance et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0453-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

We support EPA’s proposed expansion of public notices of draft NPDES permits to include posting on publicly-available websites. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c). However, the existing requirement to post notices in a newspaper should not be eliminated. There are still significant numbers of interested and concerned citizens in our region and around the country who do not have ready access to the internet, and agencies should be able to publish notice both on the web and in a newspaper with minimal effort.

Commenter Name: Albert Ettinger Commenter Affiliation: Mississippi River Collaborative Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0456-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment Excerpt:

4-32 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Public Notice Requirements (40 CFR 124.10(c))

Public notice in newspapers is frequently useless although there may be some states and places in which newspaper notice may be important, so it should remain a requirement.

The rule should require that notice of draft permits be placed on the agency's Website. It is 2016 and the vast majority of people with an interest in commenting on draft permits do not have access to numerous state newspapers and cannot be expected to scan the public notice sections of newspapers every day. Websites can be reviewed by nearly everyone and website notice should now be required.

Commenter Name: Paula Goodman Maccabee, Just Change Law Offices Commenter Affiliation: WaterLegacy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0011-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

WaterLegacy believes that notice through a state’s register, to members of the public who are given an opportunity to request electronic or paper notice regarding expired NPDES permits, and to federally-recognized tribes would be sufficient, although states should be able to supplement these forms of notice if they choose to do so.

Commenter Name: Lori Olinger Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0018-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

I support the proposal to require the public notice for all NPDES permits and the fact sheets be made available on the Web.

Commenter Name: Christopher L. Risetto Commenter Affiliation: Center for Regulatory Reasonableness (CRR) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0021-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment Excerpt:

4-33 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8. Public Notice of Permitting Actions

EPA proposes to amend 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c) to allow public notice of permitting actions to be posted on the permitting authority’s web site in lieu of newspaper publication. CRR agrees with the proposed change as long as the permittee, as well as those who request individual notice, continues to receive individual notice.

CRR also encourages EPA and States to have NPDES permits and fact sheets available on the web.

Response:

A. General

In this first final rule, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(iv) to allow permitting authorities to provide public notice of the NPDES permitting actions described in 40 CFR 124.10(a)(1) on the permitting authority’s publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(i). The EPA is also finalizing the regulatory note reminding the permitting authority to ensure that the method(s) of public notice used effectively informs all interested communities and allows access to the permitting process for those seeking to participate. In addition, where the permitting authority chooses to use online public notice for a draft permit, the EPA is finalizing the requirement to post the draft permit and fact sheet on the permitting authority’s publicly available website for the duration of the public comment period. However, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement that a permitting authority post the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments on the website for the entire term of the permit, if it chooses to use online public notice. See also the final rule and preamble.

The EPA acknowledges the comments that describe current state programs and practices, and the comment that notes that several aspects of the EPA’s proposal furthers the Clean Water Act’s cooperative federalism structure. These comments, many of which provide additional support for today’s rule, do not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule, and therefore, require no response.

One commenter described a state’s practice of maintaining past (historical) permit documents as well as the latest (current) permit documents on a website. The commenter noted their preference for this practice (maintaining current and historical permits online) and appeared to argue for its adoption on a national basis. The EPA did not contemplate or propose requiring permitting authorities to create and populate a website or database of historical permit documents, and this suggestion is, therefore, outside the scope of today’s rule and does not require a response.

4-34 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The EPA also received comments about specific waterways, drinking water, and industry practices. These comments do not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule, and therefore, require no response.

B. Comments Regarding Whether Online Public Notice is an Option or a Requirement

Many comments supported this proposed change but expressed mixed views on whether online public notice should be required or should be an option to permitting authorities. Some commenters noted that this proposed change would be equally effective at providing notice and would result in citizens more easily participating in the NPDES permitting process. Additional comments suggested that if a permitting authority uses online public notice for some permitting actions, they should be required to use online public notice for all permitting actions. One comment suggested that the EPA eliminate the newspaper publication requirement altogether. Others noted that newspaper publication is the most efficient method of notice for certain user groups, thus, the EPA should retain the option of public notice via printed publications or require permitting authorities to use both methods (printed and online notification). A few comments also encouraged clarification regarding where and how prominently online public notices should be posted on the permitting authority’s webpage. Finally, a few mixed comments were received regarding how the option for online public notice affects the requirement for permitting authorities to maintain a mailing list of interested persons and directly mail public notices to that list. Some comments sought clarification that online public notice was not a substitute for direct mailings, and one suggested that EPA require permitting authorities to use email (instead of hardcopy mail, e.g., via the U.S. Postal Service) for these direct mailings.

In response to the commenters, the EPA has decided to finalize the proposal that allows online public notice as an option available to permitting authorities. Although neither the CWA nor its implementing regulations specify the best or preferred method for providing notice to the public, 40 CFR 25.3(c)(7) specifically emphasizes that agencies should “use all feasible means to create opportunities for public participation, and to stimulate and support participation.” Permitting authorities need flexibility to provide public notice of the NPDES permitting actions described in 40 CFR 124.10(a)(1) in a way that reaches their public most effectively for their communities (e.g., newspaper publication, Internet notice, or a combination of these methods). The final rule, therefore, allows the online public notice as an option for permitting authorities; however, permitting authorities may choose not to use this option and instead continue providing public notice in local publications (e.g., daily or weekly newspapers).[1] The EPA’s decision to allow an option for online public notice does not alter the existing requirements of 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(i) if a permitting authority chooses to continue the traditional method of providing notice of an NPDES permit action in a newspaper publication. The flexibility to provide public notice via website and/or local publications will allow the permitting authority to choose the most effective way to inform all interested communities and allow access to the permitting process for those seeking to participate. In response to commenters advocating for a requirement for both methods, the EPA is not convinced that the need for use of both methods is so widespread as to merit requiring every state to provide that level of notice in every situation, especially because such a requirement would, in most cases, require a redistribution of resources from other priorities. As

4-35 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments discussed in the preamble to today’s rule, the NPDES regulations already require states to use effective means to reach the public. See, e.g., 40 CFR 124.10(a)(1).

The EPA does not agree that a permitting authority choosing to use online notice for some permitting actions should be required to use online notice for all permitting actions. However, to ensure all interested parties are aware of permitting authorities’ intended method(s) of public notification, the EPA expects permitting authorities to make their public aware of whether public notices will be made available online, both online and in local newspapers, or solely in local newspaper publications. The EPA notes that in meeting the requirement to make the draft permit and fact sheet available for the duration of the public comment period, the permitting authority’s website must clearly include a link to access these documents, while the actual document could be hosted elsewhere, such as in a repository of permit documents. In addition, the EPA’s decision to allow an option for online public notice does not in any way affect the requirements of 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1) which require that a copy of the notice must be mailed directly to persons who have joined the appropriate mailing list. 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(ix)(C) requires notifying the public of the opportunity to be put on the mailing list through periodic publication in the public press and in such publications as regional and state funded newsletters, environmental bulletins, or state law journals. In addition, permitting authorities could clearly advertise on their websites or in print the ability to sign up for notifications of draft permits via paper mail or email to ensure that all interested parties are aware of and receive effective notification of permitting actions.

Regarding the comment requesting that the EPA prescribe how state permitting authorities make their public aware of opportunities to participate in NPDES permitting on their websites, the aspects of the comment that do not pertain to posting a permit and fact sheet on a state’s website are outside the scope of today’s rulemaking. In addition, the commenter’s concerns seem to be motivated primarily by its experience with one state (which may have already addressed its concerns); the EPA does not believe this constitutes a sufficient basis on which to impose potentially burdensome specific, nationwide, regulatory requirements for how permitting authorities must design their websites. In addition, it is important to note that although today’s rule addresses the method of public notice (newspaper versus online), it is important to remember that permitting authorities are required to provide public notice in a variety of ways (e.g., by mail to interested persons on the mailing list), including using “Any other method reasonably calculated to give actual notice of the action in question to the persons potentially affected by it, including press releases or any other forum or medium to elicit public participation.” See 40 CFR 124.10(c)(4).

Regarding the comment suggesting that the EPA require permitting authorities to create a web page devoted exclusively to posting NPDES permit information and public notices, and directly link that dedicated page from the main website, the EPA disagrees that this level of nationwide regulatory specificity is required. This type of prescriptive approach may unnecessarily upend already functioning and equally appropriate approaches already being taken by states. In addition, the EPA received mixed comments regarding whether creating and maintaining such a website would be minimally or significantly burdensome. The EPA acknowledges that the cost of web storage may be negligible; however, the EPA recognizes that the administrative and staffing costs associated with maintaining and updating such websites might not be

4-36 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments inconsequential. The EPA supports and encourages permitting authorities should they maintain or choose to create such a website but do not have enough information at this time to finalize a requirement for permitting authorities to do so.

The EPA does not agree that the newspaper publication requirement should be removed. The EPA acknowledges that some communities may not be best served via online public notice. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the regulatory note that reminds the permitting authority to ensure that the method(s) of public notice used effectively informs all interested communities and allows access to the permitting process for those seeking to participate. Regarding the comments questioning the EPA’s use and discussion of two reports in the Proposed Rule: (1) New Media Technology, and Internet Use in Indian Country (2009), and (2) Enhancing Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting Programs, the EPA disagrees with the comment. The EPA is not removing the newspaper publication requirement, as the commenter suggests, and the two reports indicate that notice via the internet would be a viable and effective means of making information widely available to the public. Permitting authorities continue to have flexibility as outlined in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(4) to provide public notice using “Any other method reasonably calculated to give actual notice of the action in question to the persons potentially affected by it, including press releases or any other forum or medium to elicit public participation.” As stated in the preamble to the final rule, the EPA expects states to use whatever means is necessary and appropriate to ensure public participation. For example, the EPA expects newspaper notices to be used in areas that continue to be best served by printed publications with NPDES-regulated entities owned or operated by identifiable populations (e.g., Amish, Mennonite, and Hutterite) who do not use certain technologies (e.g., computers or electricity) and areas known or likely to include members of identifiable populations who do not have access to or use certain technologies. The EPA also expects newspaper notices to be used in areas known or likely to have limited broadband Internet access, areas with underserved or economically disadvantaged communities, areas with prolonged electrical system outages, and during large-scale disasters (e.g., hurricanes). In appropriate circumstances, states may find that their community is best served by both newspaper and internet notice. At bottom, the EPA has determined that at this time when society is transitioning to more electronic forms of media, allowing states to determine what works best for their specific communities based on where they are in that transition makes the best sense.

In response to the comment asking EPA to quantify the savings of using web posting in lieu of newspaper publication, please see the supporting statement of the final information collection request associated with this final rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629 and the Impacts section of the preamble to the final rule.

C. Comments Regarding What Must be Posted When Using the Option of Online Public Notice

There were mixed comments received on the proposed requirement to maintain the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments online for the term of the permit if online public notice was utilized.

4-37 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The EPA is aware of state- and EPA-permitting authorities that already post final permits and fact sheets on their websites for the duration of the permit. The EPA supports and encourages the continuation of this additional transparency; however, based on the comments received from permitting authorities concerned with the most effective use of their resources, the Agency is not finalizing the requirement to maintain the permit documentation on the website for the term of the permit. Instead, where the permitting authority opts for online public notice of a draft permit, the draft permit and fact sheet must be posted on the permitting authority’s website for the duration of the public comment period, when the public’s need for timely access to permitting documents is the greatest. This posting is in addition to meeting the existing requirements in 40 CFR 124.10(d), which outline the required contents of public notices for all NPDES actions described in 40 CFR 124.10(a)(1). This additional requirement for posting draft permits and fact sheets will ensure that interested members of the public are not only aware of the information contained in the public notice document but are able to view the contents of the draft permit and fact sheet online as well. Permitting authorities provide copies of final permits upon request, consistent with CWA section 402(j) and 40 CFR 124.15.

Regarding the comments related to retaining final permit, fact sheet, and responses to comments on the website for the term of the permit, see the EPA’s response to comment code 4.b.

E. Comments Related to Burden Associated With the Option for Online Public Notice

Some comments expressed support for the proposal in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(iv) to allow permitting authorities to provide public notice of the NPDES permitting actions on the permitting authority’s publicly available website in lieu of the newspaper publication requirement in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(i). The comments suggested that the proposal would be a valuable opportunity to decrease burden and streamline the permitting process, while still providing equally effective public notice. The comments also noted newspaper publication can be a timely and expensive endeavor, and online notification would provide much easier access to the public and save states significant time and money which could then be devoted to other priorities.

The EPA agrees that the option for online public notice will result in an overall reduction in burden. See the EPA’s response essay to comment code 7, the preamble to the final rule, as well as the information collection request for this final rule. The information collection request for this final rule can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629.

Additionally, some comments requested delayed implementation of the final rule for states to make necessary changes to state regulations and/or state statutes to be able to legally utilize the option for online public notice. Some comments noted that such legal changes could take at least two years.

As noted in the “Compliance Dates” section of the preamble to the final rule, authorized states, territories, and tribes have up to one year to revise, as necessary, their NPDES programs to comply with the requirements of this rule, unless a state must amend or enact a statute in order to make the required revisions, in which case such revision(s) shall take place within two years (40

4-38 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

CFR 123.62). At a minimum, the EPA anticipates any permitting authority using state-developed NPDES application forms would need to update their regulations and application forms, as needed, to be in compliance with the application requirements finalized in this rulemaking.

The EPA recognizes that each authorized program has unique state statutes and regulations, and that many of the revisions finalized in this rulemaking are clarifying in nature. Additionally, some of the revisions finalized in this rulemaking provide flexibility, such as the option to provide public notice via website; states are, therefore, not required to make this change but may do so. The EPA anticipates that in most instances, the program revisions that will be occurring to conform to this rulemaking will be non-substantial, as contemplated in 40 CFR 123.62. For those instances where the EPA determines that an authorized program’s conforming program revision is substantial, the process outlined in 40 CFR 123.62(b)(2) will be followed. In addition, authorized programs may have to update their NPDES program documents (e.g., program description, Attorney General statement) to reflect these revisions, whether they are substantial or non-substantial. See 40 CFR 123.62(b)(1).

With respect to any comment urging the Agency to change these state program modification requirements for today’s rulemaking, the EPA did not propose, and therefore, may not finalize any such requirement in today’s rulemaking.

F. Other

Regarding the comment expressing general support for the EPA’s proposal, see the EPA’s response to code 1.a.

Regarding the comment about the revision related to technology-based variances, see the EPA’s response to code 2.c.ix.

Regarding the comments on the allowing website public notice for non-major and general permits, see the EPA’s response to comment code 4.b.ii.

Regarding comments seeking clarity on what the EPA’s proposal intended for Notices of Intent (NOIs) and general permits, see the EPA’s response to code 4.b.ii.

G. The EPA Is Not Taking Final Action on These Proposed Revisions at This Time

Some comment excerpts in this comment code refer to proposed revisions to the fact sheet requirements (40 CFR 124.56). The EPA is not taking final action at this time on this proposed revision. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

4-39 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

[1] One federal agency commenter argued against requiring internet posting for all permits on the basis of operational security concerns; such concerns would be, in appropriate circumstances, a factor for the permitting authority to consider when deciding whether to exercise the option to post notice online in lieu of newspaper notice on a permit-by-permit basis.

4-40 4.b.i - Public Notice Requirements - Public Notice on Websites (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

Commenter Name: Karen Larsen Commenter Affiliation: California Water Boards Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0078-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

5. 40 CFR section 124.10(c)(2)(iv)

Comments Federal NPDES regulations do not require publishing permitting actions for non-major NPDES permits in newspapers. However, in California, we publish non-major permitting actions because our non-major permits are often as controversial as major permits and general permits. The cost to publish permitting actions in a newspaper for a non-major permit is the same as the cost to publish permitting actions in a newspaper for a major permit or a general permit. Thus, we recommend that the proposed regulation be changed to explicitly state that permitting authorities are allowed to publicly notice ALL NPDES permitting actions on their public websites in lieu of newspaper publication.

Suggested Changes to Proposed Regulation 124.10(c)(2)(iv). For all NPDES permits NPDES major permits and NPDES general permits, in lieu of the requirement to post a notice in a daily or weekly newspaper, as We also recognize that Regional Water Board staff responsible for permit reissuance operate, as described in paragraph (2)(i) of this section, the Director may post all notices required by this paragraph to the permitting authority's public Web site. If the Director selects this option, in addition to meeting the requirements in § 124.1 O(d}, the Director must post the draft permit and fact sheet on the Web site during the public comment period, and must post the final permit, fact sheet and response to comments (if any) on the Web site from the date of issuance of the permit until the permit is reissued or terminated.

Commenter Name: Kris Sigford Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0080-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment Excerpt:

MCEA supports EPA’s intention of updating methods for public notice of permitting actions using state agency websites in lieu of publication in newspapers. We support EPA’s alternative option that would require permitting authorities to provide public notice of permitting actions and documents for all NPDES permits (including non-major facilities and general permits). This

4-41 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments option would pose no burden to Minnesota, as the state already posts all NPDES permit notices on its website. This practice is important to MCEA as a public interest non-profit because it insures that we have a full month to obtain and review data and prepare comments on the draft permit. Relying on newspapers and/or the US mail often cuts rather significantly into the 30-day notice period.

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment Excerpt:

ADEM strongly supports allowing permitting authorities to have the option to place public notices for any NPDES individual permits (major or non-major) or NPDES master general permits (major or non-major) on its website in lieu of publishing the notice in newspapers. The regulations should allow each permitting authority to choose which option for publishing the public notice is best for their needs. There may be some permitting authorities that do not have the ability at this time to comply with the requirement to publish the notices online. For those that have the ability, the cost savings of publishing all public notices on website will be considerable. The cost of publishing public notices in newspaper continues to increase as publishers try to offset the loss of revenue due to newspapers' dwindling circulation. Since the number of non-major permits is much greater than the number major permits, the benefits of extending the option to non-major permits would have a greater cost savings to permitting authorities. Ln addition, the public would prefer to be able to see all permit public notices in the same location.

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment Excerpt:

ADEM is also concerned that the preamble and proposed regulations do not make it clear that Notices of lntent (NOI's) for coverage under a master general permit are not required to be placed on public notice. EPA should rectify this in its final rule. States that voluntarily have NOI's publicly available prior to coverage under a master general permit have incurred additional costs and resource expenditures.

4-42 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: John Pastore Commenter Affiliation: Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0169-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment Excerpt:

§124.10 - Public notice of permit actions and public comment period

Public Notice Requirements

SCAP supports the proposed changes to the public notice posting requirements as described under §124.10 to allow for public notices of major NPDES permits to be posted on the permitting authority’s public website, in lieu of posting in a daily or weekly newspaper. SCAP recommends that all notices related to NPDES permits (major and minor permits) and hearings be allowed to meet public notification requirements by online postings.

Commenter Name: Jon Tack Commenter Affiliation: Iowa Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0173-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

The Iowa DNR is also in favor of expanding the proposed revisions to include non-major individual permits, as we support increased public access to permitting information. We have no comment on expanding the revisions to include non-major general permits, as we issue general permits by rule, and our rule revisions are already posted on the internet.

Commenter Name: Nina Bell Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment Excerpt:

Not only should public notices apply to all non-major dischargers and general permits, these are important sources of water pollution and should be treated no differently than major permits. The same is true of any authorizations to be covered under general permits that are subject to public notice and comment under federal or state law or policy.

4-43 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Marty Haroldson Commenter Affiliation: North Dakota Department of Health Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0236-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment Excerpt:

The Department would like EPA to clarify what documents specifically need to be posted on a state's website. We are required by statute to publish public notices in the local newspaper and we currently post them on our website. The Department is also concerned that notice of intents are going to be made mandatory to be posted to our website. This requirement would increase the amount of time and funding needed to comply.

Commenter Name: Brenna Mannion Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0240-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

That being said, EPA should not require NPDES permitting authorities to public notice all NPDES notice and hearings on their website.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 53

Comment Excerpt:

First, and most importantly, we agree with EPA’s assessment that using the web to share all permit information electronically (draft permit, hearing notice, factsheet, final permit, etc.) over the lifetime of the permit will significantly improve public access and in many cases could result in financial and time savings to the permit authority.191 Making all permit information electronically available will also make it easier for organizations to disseminate information to their members, coalition partners and other stakeholders. Considering that most (if not all) permitting authorities already maintain a public website, and most already post at least some permit information there, the costs of requiring that such information be posted on the web for all permits are likely to be minimal for most permitting authorities. This is equally likely to be true for “non-major” NPDES permits as it is for “major” NPDES permits. Accordingly, we

4-44 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments recommend that EPA require for all NPDES permits that agencies post public notices and permit information on their websites. We also recommend that, given the likely minimal costs and burdens associated with this requirement, that it go into effect within 180 days after this rule is finalized.

191 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,358-59.

Commenter Name: David L. Smiga Commenter Affiliation: United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0408-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment Excerpt:

Issue: EPA is seeking comment on whether proposed revisions to public notice requirements in 40 CFR 124.10(c) should be expanded to include NPDES non-major individual and general permits

Comment:

U. S. Steel does not support expanded public notice requirements to include NPDES non-major individual and general permits. This revision would lengthen the process for obtaining any new permit or permit modification, even for those permit actions which are not environmentally significant.

This proposal would significantly increase the burden on state permitting agencies and would almost certainly increase the backlog of minor and general permits, which is not consistent with the EPA's stated goal of more timely issuance of state NPDES permits.

Commenter Name: Michael Churchman Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Environmental Council, et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0431-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

Our organizations urge EPA to require NPDES permitting authorities to post public notice of all permits and hearings on a publicly accessible website, including non-major and general permits. Requiring permit authorities to post all NPDES permit and hearing notifications on a publicly available website will not only bring the NPDES program into the

4-45 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

21st Century, it will greatly improve and enhance public access to critical permit information. We agree with EPA’s assessment that using the web to share all permit information electronically (draft permit, hearing notice, factsheet, final permit, etc.) over the lifetime of the permit will significantly improve public access and in many cases could result in financial and time savings to the permit authority. Making all permit information electronically available will also make it easier for organizations to disseminate information to their members, coalition partners and other stakeholders. Considering that most permitting authorities undoubtedly already maintain a public website, we recommend that EPA require permitting authorities to comply with the new electronic public posting requirement for all NPDES permits within 180 days after these regulations go into effect.

It is important that the final rule, at a minimum, also include a provision requiring permitting authorities to publish permit and hearing notices in newspapers or other print media when the NPDES-regulated entity is in an area with limited access to the internet or in communities (Amish, Mennonite, etc.) that do not use computers. To ensure that a wider range of the affected public have access to permit information, our organizations recommend EPA maintain the current newspaper publication requirement. It is important that permitting authorities are still taking steps to affirmatively reach out to the public in advance of renewing or modifying permits, not simply providing notice to those individuals who already seek out such information and know how to navigate agency websites.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 38

Comment Excerpt:

The EPA is finalizing the Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Remand Rule. Therefore, the TCEQ requests that the EPA ensures that the two rules be carefully reviewed for consistency in regards to the public notice requirements for each individual notice of intent (application) for authorization under the Phase II MS4 General Permit issued by states or the EPA.

Commenter Name: Claudio H. Ternieden Commenter Affiliation: Water Environment Federation (WEF) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0448-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

Public Notice Requirements

4-46 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

WEF supports the proposed changes to the public notice posting requirements as described under §124.10 to allow for public notices of major NPDES permits to be posted on the permitting authority’s public website, in lieu of posting in a daily or weekly newspaper.

COMMENT: WEF recommends that all notices related to NPDES permits (major and minor permits) and hearings be allowed to meet public notification requirements by online postings.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment Excerpt:

The preamble of the rule (p. 31358, C. 1, 151 paragraph) proposes to revise 40 CFR 124.10(c) to allow permitting authorities to provide public notice of permitting actions for NPDES major individual and general permits on the permitting authority's publicly available Web site in lieu of the newspaper publication. LDEQ supports this amendment, allowing states the option of utilizing a paperless notification system for individual and master general permits. However, LDEQ does not support the requirement for states to utilize Web-based notifications for all NPDES/LPDES permits.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment Excerpt:

Additionally, the preamble (p. 31359, 2nd paragraph) states EPA is also seeking comments on the proposed revisions to include all non-major NPDES permits and general permits. As general permits are mentioned in two separate instances, it can only be assumed EPA is referencing the public notice of the NOIs or letters of authorization, not the master general permit. The proposed rule language does not distinguish between master general permit issuances and authorizations granted under a master general permit. Therefore, LDEQ requests clarification from EPA on the public notice of NO Is. If EPA's intention is to require public noticing of all NOIs submitted for coverage under a master general permit, LDEQ strongly objects, as this circumvents the purpose of issuing a master general permit. Master general permits covering permitted activities are public noticed already as required under 40 CFR 124.1 O/LAC 3113.C. There is no statutory requirement in the Clean Water Act which would require a second public notice for individual authorizations under a general permit, except in the case of Phase II MS4s. Both LDEQ and EPA issue master general permits, which grant automatic coverage within a period of time after a

4-47 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments completed NOI is received. For example, construction general permit coverages are granted authorization 48 hours after a completed NOI is received, unless otherwise notified by LDEQ. In order to comply with such a requirement, significant staff resources would be required to both reopen and modify all 26 LDEQ master general permits to incorporate a public notice period. Additionally, with a universe of over 12,000 authorizations and substantially more than any other state in EPA Region 6 (over double that of any other state in the region), public noticing each and every authorization is not a viable option in consideration of lower staffing levels and funding in recent years. To do so, would cost 24,000 man-hours and 1.3 MM additional dollars each year (using provisions of the new regulations of publishing notices on the internet).

Response:

A. General

The EPA requested comments on additional items related to public notice, but did not propose regulatory language for these, including whether proposed revisions to public notice requirements in 40 CFR 124.10(c) should be expanded to include NPDES non-major individual and general permits. Under current regulations, there is no specific requirement for publication in the newspaper.

The EPA received mixed comments on this item. One comment suggested that the EPA explicitly allow permitting authorities to public notice all NPDES permits on their public websites in lieu of newspaper publication. This comment noted that it is their state’s practice to publish non-major permitting actions because they are often as controversial as major permitting actions. Given this state’s practice, the commenter argued that the regulation should make clear that permitting authorities may public notice all NPDES permitting actions on public websites in lieu of newspaper publication. One comment expressed support for allowing notification of public hearings to be made online, and that it would be preferable for the public to see all public notices in the same location and in a timelier manner. Some comments supported requiring permitting authorities to provide public notice of permitting actions and documents for all NPDES permits (including non-major facilities and general permits) suggesting that electronic permit information would significantly improve and enhance public access, make it easier for permitting authorities to disseminate information, and be easily implementable because most (if not all) permitting authorities maintain a public website. However, one comment strongly supported allowing permitting authorities to have the option to place public notices for any NPDES individual permits (major or non-major) or NPDES general permits (major or non- major) on its website in lieu of publishing the notice in newspapers. Another comment suggested that expanding the public notice requirements to include non-major individual and general permits would lengthen the process for new permits or permit modification, even for permit actions that are not environmentally significant, thus they did not support this part of the EPA’s proposal. Two comments opposed requiring permitting authorities to public notice all NPDES notice and hearings on their website. Some comments mentioned their existing state practices related to this item.

4-48 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The EPA also received some comments that expressly noted confusion related to the EPA’s intent with this item. Some comments expressed concern and sought clarity regarding whether the EPA’s proposal meant that Notices of Intent (NOIs) for coverage under a general permit are required to be placed on public notice. Additionally, one comment provided an estimated increase of burden hours and costs if they were required to public notice NOIs using online public notice. One comment requested that the EPA’s Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Remand Rule (which was in development at the time of this rulemaking’s proposal) be reviewed for consistency regarding the public notice requirements for each individual notice of intent (application) for authorization under the Phase II MS4 General Permit issued by states or the EPA.

The EPA acknowledges the confusion related to the additional topics related to the public notice regulations for which the EPA requested comments but did not propose specific regulatory text. For example, the EPA did not intend to imply the Agency was considering requiring that NOIs seeking coverage under a general permit be subject to public notice requirements. The EPA has considered the comments received, and as explained in the preamble to the final rule, has decided not to pursue a change in the public notice requirements to include NPDES non-major individual and general permits as the confusion evidenced by the comments makes it clear that the discussion in the proposal did not provide enough detail to allow for meaningful comment. If the Agency were to pursue such a change in the future, it would need to better understand the value, if any, internet posting would add and what type of burden it would place on state permitting agencies.

B. Other

With regard to the comments related to the requirement to post final permits, fact sheets and response to comments online for the term of the permit where the permitting authority opts to use website public notice, see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 4.b.i.

The EPA acknowledges the comments noting potential increase or decrease in burden associated with public noticing non-major and general permits on the internet. For the reasons discussed above, the EPA has decided not to pursue a change in the public notice requirements to include NPDES non-major individual and general permits, thus there will be no change in burden related to this item. With regard to the comments related to potential burden from the change to the public notice requirements finalized in this rulemaking, see the EPA’s response essay to code 7, the preamble to the final rule, as well as the information collection request for this final rule. The information collection request for this final rule can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2018- 0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629.

4-49 4.b.ii - Public Notice Requirements - Expansion to Non-major and General Permittees (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4.b.iii - Public Notice Requirements - Ways to Post Permits and Fact Sheets Online/Linkage to ECHO (40 CFR 124.10(c))

Commenter Name: Beth McGee Commenter Affiliation: Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0045-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

We also like the idea of linking EPA’s Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) online system with the relevant permit information and fact sheets. In the age of digital information and files, gone should be the days spent reviewing permit files in hard copy at a permitting authority’s office.

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment Excerpt:

ADEM strongly disagrees with EPA's proposal to add a new requirement (i.e. maintain the final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments on the website for the entire term of the permit) when opting to post public notices on a website. EPA mistakenly may be assuming that if the public notice, draft permit, and fact sheet is posted during the public comment period, it is no additional burden to maintain the final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments on a permitting authority's website for the entire term of the permit. Developing and maintaining a webpage that posts the final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments is a much more difficult and costly endeavor that posting public notices for a short duration, and it would be yet another unfunded mandate EPA is placing on the states. In addition, each permitting authority is subject to its own applicable state open records law, and it is inappropriate for EPA to prescribe the manner in which a permitting authority must make its records available to the public. Should EPA ignore these arguments, EPA should also consider that if a permitting authority has an electronic repository of its records available to the public (ADEM eFile system is a good example), it would be a satisfactory alternative to a specific webpage containing links to each final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments. If a permitting authority has an electronic repository for its records, a member of the public can access all documents related to a permit of interest.

Commenter Name: Jon Tack Commenter Affiliation: Iowa Department of Natural Resources

4-50 4.b.iii - Public Notice Requirements - Ways to Post Permits and Fact Sheets Online/Linkage to ECHO (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0173-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

In order to facilitate the linking of EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) system to public notices, EPA could ask states to provide a link to their public website where public notices will be posted. Such links could be included in ECHO, and could take users to a main page or search page where they could then search for the appropriate public notice. The Iowa DNR is not in favor of including permit-specific links in ECHO at this time, as the complexity of creating such links has not been considered and is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 55

Comment Excerpt:

•EPA should revise 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c)(1) to require permitting agencies to provide the public with the option of signing up to receive public notices by email in lieu of receiving hard copies of notices by regular mail. As with internet posting of public notices and permit information, this is a “no-brainer” that will significantly increase public access to permit information at minimal cost to permitting agencies. Notices by regular mail can take a week or more to arrive, cutting into the already very limited time allowed for comment on draft permits or to seek administrative review of final permit actions

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 36

Comment Excerpt:

The proposed rules require the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments (if applicable) to remain on the state’s web site for the duration of the permit term. Requiring this would result in increased costs and workload related to scanning and uploading these documents. The documents are publicly available through Freedom of Information Act request or by visiting the TCEQ Central File Room. Additionally, certain data elements from issued permits are available via the TCEQ online web queries and via the EPA’s ECHO. The TCEQ is opposed to the requirement to post the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments on the state’s website.

4-51 4.b.iii - Public Notice Requirements - Ways to Post Permits and Fact Sheets Online/Linkage to ECHO (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

Likewise, all of the potential extra requirements EPA is considering that could come attached to publishing draft permits on the web have resource implications.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment Excerpt:

The rule also proposes to update the language at §124.l0 (2)(iv) to require the states to post final permits, fact sheet, and response to comments to the website on the day of issuance. While LDEQ does not object to making these files electronically available, the requirement must allow sufficient time for the document to make it through the administrative process (mail out and scanning into the state's electronic document management system).

LDEQ proposes the regulation allow for a time-frame of thirty days. LDEQ would realize annual savings of$169,241 and 516 man-hours by publishing notices and associated permits and factsheets/statements of basis on the internet.

Commenter Name: Gil Rogers Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Rivers Alliance et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0453-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment Excerpt:

Furthermore, fact sheet quality varies across our region, and can even vary from permit to permit within the same state. We support EPA’s efforts to make fact sheets fully accessible to interested members of the public, and to contain complete and accurate information. If any information is summarized, the public should also have clear access to the original data from which the summary has been drawn. EPA should include an explicit statement in the regulations that the best information available be used in all facets of a permit application.

4-52 4.b.iii - Public Notice Requirements - Ways to Post Permits and Fact Sheets Online/Linkage to ECHO (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested comments on additional items related to public notice but did not propose regulatory language for these, including: ways in which NPDES permits and fact sheets could be posted electronically to make it easier for EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) information system to link to the permit fact sheets.

One comment expressed support for the idea of linking EPA’s ECHO system with the relevant permit information and fact sheets, as this would alleviate the need to review permit files in hard copy at a permitting authority’s office. Some comments noted that there would be resource implications for permitting authorities to link permit information in ECHO. Although one comment suggested a potential option for the EPA to require permit-specific links in ECHO, the comment overall expressed opposition to the idea of linking ECHO to public notice of NPDES permits. The EPA has considered these comments, and as explained in the preamble to the final rule, has decided not to pursue a change in regulations to address this issue at this time.

Regarding the comment suggesting that the EPA further revise 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1) to allow the public to receive public notices by email in lieu of receiving hard copies of notices by regular mail, the comment noted that this could allow quicker access to the public, as receiving a hard copy in the mail could consume more than a week of the public comment period in some cases. The EPA did not propose this change or request comment on the issue; thus, this comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. To be clear, the EPA’s decision to finalize an option for online public notice does not alter the existing requirements of 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1) which require that a copy of the notice must be mailed directly to persons who have joined the appropriate mailing list. 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(ix)(C) requires notifying the public of the opportunity to be put on the mailing list through periodic publication in the public press and in such publications as regional and state funded newsletters, environmental bulletins, or state law journals.

B. Other

Regarding the comments related to the requirement to post final permits, fact sheets, and responses to comments online for the term of the permit, where the permitting authority opts to use website public notice, see the EPA’s response essay to comment code 4.b.i.

Regarding the comment noting the expected annual savings from publishing notices and associated permit files on the internet and other burden comments, see the EPA’s response essay to code 7, the preamble to the final rule, as well as the information collection request for this final rule. This comment provided support and added to the EPA’s rationale for finalizing this revision with respect to the associated burden reduction. The information collection request for this final rule can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629.

4-53 4.b.iii - Public Notice Requirements - Ways to Post Permits and Fact Sheets Online/Linkage to ECHO (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

C. The EPA Is Not Taking Final Action on These Proposed Revisions at This Time

Regarding the EPA’s proposal related to the contents of and documentation for fact sheets, the EPA is not taking final action in 40 CFR 124.56 at this time. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic which require additional time to analyze. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, the EPA is not responding to comments received on this topic at this time.

4-54 4.b.iii - Public Notice Requirements - Ways to Post Permits and Fact Sheets Online/Linkage to ECHO (40 CFR 124.10(c))

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4.c - Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56) – Reserved

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

4-55 4.c - Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4.d. Deletion of 40 CFR 125.3(a)(1)(ii) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing the deletion of 40 CFR 125.3(a)(1)(ii), which is a regulatory provision that is no longer applicable because the statutory authority from which it derived was repealed in 1981. While the deletion of this section was included in the proposed rule, the Agency did not solicit comment on it, as it merely implements a statutory change.

4-56 4.d. Deletion of 40 CFR 125.3(a)(1)(ii)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

5. Vessels Exclusion (40 CFR 122.3(a)) – Reserved

The EPA is not finalizing the proposed changes to 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) due to the very recent enactment of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which exempts discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel from NPDES permitting requirements consistent with the existing regulatory language at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a). If the EPA determines as it implements the new Act that changes to the definition are warranted, it will make any such changes in a separate regulatory action.

5-1 5. Vessels Exclusion (40 CFR 122.3(a)) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

6. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(a)(2)) – Reserved

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revision to this regulatory section. The EPA received numerous comments on this topic, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to this topic, comments received on this topic do not require a response at this time.

6-1 6. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(a)(2)) – Reserved

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

7. Overall Burden

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

EPA has indicated that the proposed regulations would generally not require additional resource implications to the permitting authority; however, ADEM disagrees with this assessment. The specificity of the information proposed to be included in the Fact Sheets as well as responding to objections of administratively permits would require significant additional resources.

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

EPA has proposed to revise this section to require usage "of relevant qualitative and quantitative data, analyses or other information ... ". EPA should specify that states will not be required to utilize third party data as such data may not meet QA/QC requirements.

EPA has also proposed to revise this section to require supporting "data or analyses quantifying or accounting for the presence of each limited pollutant or pollutant parameter in the receiving water." Many states do not have site specific background levels of parameters in many receiving waters and a required non-zero assumed value for background conditions may lead to overly stringent limitations which would exceed levels necessary to protect water quality. In the absence of relevant data from state or federal agencies, ADEM recommends that EPA allow the state to use its best professional judgment, which may include assuming a zero concentration in determining an assumed background condition. Note that permits are often based on receiving water low-flows, and include other conditions which may also be based on conservative estimates; therefore, assumptions of zero background conditions may not actually result in 100% allocation as EPA suggests in the preamble to the proposed rule. EPA also indicates that where the actual assimilative capacity of the receiving water cannot be accurately determined or predicted, the permitting authority would be expected to establish effluent limitations based on the application of applicable water quality criteria at the point of discharge (often referred to as "criteria end of pipe"). ADEM believes this position is overly restrictive when a background concentration is unknown, especially where best professional judgment indicates that water quality would be protected. It would also pressure permitting authorities to increase their ambient monitoring data collection efforts. In this regard, EPA has not taken into consideration the additional costs and resources that would be required by states to obtain the ambient data. Also,

7-1 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

EPA has not taken into consideration the potential delay in permit issuance awaiting completion of ambient of monitoring activities and the affects this would have on permit backlog rates.

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

EPA asserts that no additional resources would be required for states as a result of this proposal. ADEM strongly disagrees with this assessment. The administrative and technical procedures associated with this proposal would require substantial efforts of the states, as most states would not be receptive to EPA issuing permits for a state with an approved program. Again, ADEM asserts that EPA has other methods by which the permits of concern could be addressed without the added administrative procedures.

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment Excerpt:

ADEM strongly disagrees with EPA's proposal to add a new requirement (i.e. maintain the final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments on the website for the entire term of the permit) when opting to post public notices on a website. EPA mistakenly may be assuming that if the public notice, draft permit, and fact sheet is posted during the public comment period, it is no additional burden to maintain the final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments on a permitting authority's website for the entire term of the permit. Developing and maintaining a webpage that posts the final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments is a much more difficult and costly endeavor that posting public notices for a short duration, and it would be yet another unfunded mandate EPA is placing on the states. In addition, each permitting authority is subject to its own applicable state open records law, and it is inappropriate for EPA to prescribe the manner in which a permitting authority must make its records available to the public. Should EPA ignore these arguments, EPA should also consider that if a permitting authority has an electronic repository of its records available to the public (ADEM eFile system is a good example), it would be a satisfactory alternative to a specific webpage containing links to each final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments. If a permitting authority has an electronic repository for its records, a member of the public can access all documents related to a permit of interest.

7-2 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Glenda L. Dean Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment Excerpt:

ADEM strongly disagrees with EPA's proposal pertaining to the revisions to the Fact Sheet requirements. The level of specificity required would require significant additional resources and EPA should revisit these proposed regulations with the states.

Commenter Name: Jaime C. Gaggero, Director Commenter Affiliation: Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0099-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment Excerpt:

The proposed rule allows NPDES States to public notice NPDES major permits and general permits on the agency's website in lieu of the requirement of publishing the public notice in a daily or weekly newspaper. For agencies intending to utilize their websites to public notice NPDES major permits and general permits, additional requirements are mandated by EPA. In addition to the public notice, the agencies are required to place on the website the draft permit, and fact sheet during the public comment period. Following the public comment period, the agencies would be expected to also maintain on the website the final permit, fact sheet, and responses to any comments, until the permit is reissued or terminated. We question the value of retaining and archiving this information on the website for extended periods, e.g., more than 6 months, following issuance/reissuance of the permit

If KDHE chose to publish the public notices of NPDES permits on our website, we would still be required by State statute and regulation to officially publish the public notices in the Kansas Register. Without changing current statutes and regulations, no economy would be realized by KDHE for utilizing the agency website for this purpose. The choice as to whether to utilize the agency's website to public notice major NPDES permits and general permits or at some point in the future to expand this provision to address non-major permits as well should remain the purview of the agency and not be mandated by EPA.

While some economies could be achieved using the agency's website for publishing permit public notices, there are also costs associated with the new requirements for archiving the public notice, the draft and final permits, the fact sheet and responses to any comments during the public comment period through the term of the permit. The increased manpower for creating and maintaining the website and the required increase in server storage for archived materials have

7-3 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments capital and operating costs that would exceed any cost savings realized from foregoing the newspaper publications.

It is unclear whether EPA's reference to "general permit" is associated with the master general permit only or whether EPA will also require using the agency's website to public notice Notices of intent (NOis) submitted and authorized in conjunction with the issued master general permit. KDHE would be opposed to a requirement for listing and archiving NO Is because we do not have the funding or man power to support this proposal.

KDHE disagrees with the need to expand the requirements of 124.56(a)(l) for individual permits and adding the new requirements of 124.56(a)(2) for general permits. There is little to no general public interest shown in NPDES permit factsheets placed on public notice in Kansas. A permittee's environmental staff or their consulting frrm desiring to determine how limits are established have always been able to secure whatever information they desire from KDHE during the public notice period and routinely meet with agency permitting staff to discuss the details of how permit limits were developed and the reason for permit conditions placed in the permit. In addition to the marginal utility of including new information in detail within the fact sheet, we disagree with EPA's assessment that the implementation of the new requirements will not be a significant burden to NPDES States. Every permit being reissued would have to be reviewed by agency permit staff against either the criteria listed in 124.56(a)(l) for individual permits or 124.56(a)(2) for general permits to ensure compliance. There are numerous areas where, while the information exists, (e.g., the water quality models utilized, the input data and assumptions used in the modeling, pollutant specific background data or assumed data inputs when no actual data exist), it is not in a form that would be understood by the general public and possibly misinterpreted. While the majority of the work would occur during the initial issuance of a new permit or the first reissuance following the promulgation of the final rule, this initial work would be substantial. With very limited staffing and resources, one logical outcome to be expected would be an increase in the time to issue new permits which would increase our backlogged permits which would result in an increase of administratively extended permits.

If EPA decides to implement these proposed provisions, based upon NPDES State and EPA Headquarters telephone conversations regarding the proposed rule, it should either be clearly stated in the final rule and the preamble, that failure to include a listed item detailed in 124.56 in the fact sheet, because of inadvertent oversight, would not be grounds for revocation or appeal of an existing issued permit. Based upon the conference call telephone conversation between the NPDES States and EPA Headquarters staff on the details regarding the proposed rule, EPA indicated the issue of any omitted information as a part of the fact sheet would have to be made during the public comment period. We appreciate the opportunity to provide EPA our comments and recommendations regarding the proposed rule, EPA indicated the issue of any omitted information as a part of the fact sheet would have to be made during the public comment period

Commenter Name: John A. Coates Commenter Affiliation: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

7-4 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0111-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

Florida, and other similarly situated States would be uniquely affected by the proposed rule. We integrate NPDES and non-NPDES discharges under a single wastewater facility permit, e.g. surface water and ground water discharge, stormwater, biosolids, reuse, and solid waste. Many wastewater permits include NPDES discharge only as an infrequent backup measure when land application or reuse is not available. This permitting strategy creates efficiencies and cost savings for both the regulated community and the state, and protects both surface and ground water. Furthermore, Florida is a national leader in reuse of reclaimed water and our permitting strategy helps promote reuse and reduce surface water discharges. Under the proposed expansion of EPA authority, Florida Permittees potentially would need to obtain separate permits for NPDES, reuse and solid waste management. This would greatly increase Permittees’ economic and regulatory burden as well as FDEP workload.

Commenter Name: Jon M. Stomp, III, P.E. Commenter Affiliation: Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0158-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

This is a change in policy which will likely result in much more stringent effluent limits, with significant increase in compliance costs. This contradicts EPA statement later in the preamble that the change "will not impose a new burden." (81 FR 31354)

Commenter Name: Heather R. Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: Washington State Department of Ecology Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0159-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

Water Quality-Based Permitting Process

Dilution Allowances and Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

Ecology disagrees with EPA’s statement in the preamble indicating there would be minimal if any new costs associated with this rule’s implementation. We are concerned that these proposed

7-5 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments changes may require unnecessary water quality background data to be collected to support permit decisions.

Commenter Name: Rick Clifton Commenter Affiliation: Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0161-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

EPA Should Not Amend Section 122.21 (g)(7) to Add a New Paragraph (ix) Regarding Data Requirements in Permit Applications.

The proposed federal regulation would add an additional cost burden to regulated parties that must submit additional data in applications. The required additional cost will provide no environmental benefit, because the required data is already publicly available online.

Commenter Name: Rick Clifton Commenter Affiliation: Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0161-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

EPA's Proposed Changes to Sections 122.44(d)(1)(ii) & (vii) Regarding Water Quality- Based Requirements are Unduly Burdensome.

A. Proposed Section 122.44(d)(1)(ii)

The Authority interprets the proposed change as providing that if "supporting data or analyses quantifying or accounting for the presence of pollutants in the receiving water" are not available, then water quality criteria must be applied at the end-of-pipe. If this interpretation is correct, then the proposed change will be extremely burdensome, unnecessary, and not required by the statute. EPA does not include in the preamble the costs of collecting analytical data on every pollutant and pollutant parameter for which State water quality standards have been established for every discharge. Nor has EPA included in the preamble any costs of additional treatment equipment and operational costs of complying with criteria at end-of-pipe when analytical data are not available.

7-6 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Ed Thomas Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0167-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment Excerpt:

TFI has Concerns Regarding the Additional Fact Sheet Requirements

The Agency has added a large burden to state NPDES regulatory staff by significantly expanding the required information that must be contained in EPA fact sheets. While this may have little impact on TFI members we are concerned that increased work load will prevent the state from issuing new permits in a timely manner.

The proposed revisions require the fact sheets to be highly detailed which will likely increase the length of the document from several to perhaps hundreds of pages (especially when the Level II WQBEL process is used to apply NNC). These changes will lead to the potential for errors in the administrative record because the permit writer will have to transpose much more information from the application and supporting materials into the fact sheet. Further, EPA is already concerned about the length of time it takes to process a permit renewal. Requiring substantial additional information be included in the "Fact Sheet" (rather than making it publically available via review of permit application records), creates an additional administrative burden for the issuing agency, which in turn could cause greater delays to permit issuance, and create an even larger backlog of permits to process.

Consequently, TFI recommends there be no expansion to the Fact Sheet detail requirements, particularly in cases of simple permit renewals with few or no changes. Further, the WQBEL process is well documented, publicly noticed separately and should remain separate from the fact sheet.

Commenter Name: Peter Goodman Commenter Affiliation: Commonwealth of Kentucky Division of Water Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0172-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

EPA fails to propose a distinct rule but allows comment on options more appropriate in an advanced notice of rulemaking. 1 As such, states cannot fully evaluate the resource impacts of implementation of the rulemaking, such as additional staffing needs and necessary programmatic needs. EPA also underestimates the cumulative resource implications of this proposed rulemaking2 along with other recent regulatory changes and proposals, such as the August 2015 Update of the National Water Quality Standards Regulation, §316 Cooling Water Intake Rule, the Steam Electric Rule, the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, pesticide permitting, the

7-7 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments sufficiently sensitive methods rule, enhanced public notifications for Combined Sewer Overflows, the coal ash rule, the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Rule, and the soon to be finalized new Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Remand Rule. This proposed rulemaking would force states to redirect limited resources without a corresponding benefit to the environment and specifically water quality. The Division is concerned that EPA has not conducted a resource assessment to identify staffing and other needs with regards to the NPDES program, nor has EPA proposed any other options that would otherwise reduce the permit backlog. The Division provides the following to the extent that it can comment.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s proposal is ill-conceived, will create more delays for EPA and the states, and will negatively impact the permittees.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment Excerpt:

To the extent state environmental agencies are overburdened, it is unclear how EPA’s proposal even comes close to addressing the underlying problem. EPA’s proposal does nothing to address the problem of limited resources, and if somehow finalized as proposed, may further frustrate state programs.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 44

Comment Excerpt:

While EPA claims that this Proposed Rule will impose minimal burden on states and permittees, the level of specificity EPA seeks to include in the fact sheets will undoubtedly require an

7-8 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments enormous amount of time on the part of each state agency and each permittee. The proposed fact sheet requirements are likely to have the effect of further delays in NPDES permit reissuance.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 58

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s proposed Section 1.2.3 requires applicants with new or existing facilities whose discharges are composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity, or whose discharges are composed of stormwater and non-stormwater to complete Form 2F, unless exempted. The requirement to complete Form 2F when discharges are composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater is unnecessary, duplicative, and creates an unnecessary burden on the permit applicants.

Commenter Name: Maria L. Race Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0176-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

NRG believes this would also be counterproductive to business resources because requested operational changes in the actual NPDES renewal applications would not be incorporated into an administratively continued permit. This can have serious business and environmental implications as we try to incorporate environmental controls and other required changes at our stations which can necessitate modification to our waste water flows and outfalls.

Commenter Name: Patrick Cagle Commenter Affiliation: Jobkeeper Alliance Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0179-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Since its formation in 2012, JobKeeper has been a vocal advocate for thousands of hardworking men and women who earn their living mining, transporting, and utilizing coal for energy production. In states like Alabama, coal mining, power generation, and powerhouse

7-9 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments maintenance jobs offer significantly higher wages and better benefits than other industries requiring similar skills. However, these quality jobs, often held by union workers, are being eliminated at an alarming rated as a result of the increasing regulatory burden targeting this industry. JobKeeper urges the EPA to consider and address the potentially disparate impact its proposed regulations and amendments could have on the organized labor community in the coal, electrical-generating, and other industries in its foot print. To this end, JobKeeper asks the EPA to withdraw its rulemaking based on the following comments.

Commenter Name: Roger Claff, P.E. Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0180-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

EPA's Expansion of Specific Requirements for Fact Sheets Removes State Agency Flexibility and Could Significantly Delay Permit Issuance

In the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes to significantly expand the required contents of permit fact sheets. Although API concurs with EPA in the value of a detailed, comprehensive permit fact sheet and the transparency such a fact sheet affords, API is concerned the expanded fact sheet requirements will prove burdensome to state agency permit writers and will cause further delays in permit issuance. The proposed highly detailed, expansive and prescriptive list of fact sheet requirements removes state agency flexibility to focus priority on the most significant or salient components of permit development, which could vary considerably from permit to permit. EPA has not justified the need for this expansive list of permit fact sheet requirements and should remove them from the Proposed Rule.

Commenter Name: Carl VanderKolk Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Cattlemen’s Association Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0181-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

MCA opposes any additional burdens that will slow the NPDES permitting process.

Commenter Name: Carl VanderKolk Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Cattlemen’s Association

7-10 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0181-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s analysis pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) is sorely lacking.

Commenter Name: Frederic P. Andes Commenter Affiliation: Federal Water Quality Coalition Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0182-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

MINIMIZING REGULATORY BURDENS: EPA should develop reasonable estimates of the burdens created by each aspect of the Proposal, and then seek to minimize that burden as it finalizes the regulations.

We have noted several times, in these comments, that EP A has underestimated the burdens created by the new permitting requirements in the Proposal. In several cases, EPA has stated that there is no new burden created by a specific provision, when it is obvious that States and/or permit applicants will have to do more work than is required under the current regulations. The Agency needs to reevaluate those situations, develop reasonable estimates of the amount of additional work involved (including the costs that result), and then add those estimates to the burdens that it already expects to occur from the new requirements, so that both the Agency and the stakeholders have a clear sense of the overall burden created. Then, as EPA makes decisions about the content of the final regulations, the Agency should seek to minimize this overall burden, so that the goals embodied in the Proposal can be reached in an effective and efficient manner. As a matter of law, and as a matter of sound regulatory policy, that effort is critical to the successful completion of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Patti Hershey Commenter Affiliation: Lower Colorado River Authority Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0186-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

The Proposed Rule would place an unreasonably burdensome requirement on the States to gather data or information in addition to using their existing criteria. EPA contends that this revision would not require the collection of new data or would not impose a new burden. At the same time, however, the Proposed Rule states that decisions related to a dilution allowance

7-11 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

"...must be supported by data or analyses quantifying or accounting for the presence or absence of each assessed pollutant..." This is in direct conflict with EPA's claim that that this revision would not require the collection of new data or impose a new burden.3 As a permittee, LCRA is concerned that if this proposal is adopted, it would require States and applicants to expend significant resources to collect data without a sufficient scientific basis. Instead, LCRA supports the current process whereby States follow their implementation procedures and policies and issue permits based upon relevant data that is available on background concentrations of pollutants.

3 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,354 (May 18, 2016).

Commenter Name: Michael P. Carlin Commenter Affiliation: Western Urban Water Coalition Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0194-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

The proposal places an unfair regulatory burden on the regulated community

The Proposed Rule states that this mechanism is important "given the current backlog of administratively extended permits." 81 Fed. Reg. at 31357. An existing permit is only administrative continued where a permittee has submitted a timely and complete NPDES permit renewal application. The delay is caused by the failure of the state to act on the application before the permittee’s current permit expires. Thus, permittees who have used good-faith efforts to comply will have to go through what appears to be an added process and burden to renew their permits because of state delays.

In addition, depending on the procedures utilized by a particular state to develop permit terms and conditions, the addition of an antidegradation reference, new processes for establishing dilution allowances and new reasonable potential determination analysis mandates may increase the burden on states and permittees beyond what the Proposed Rule indicates in its conclusory analysis.

Commenter Name: Michael P. Carlin Commenter Affiliation: Western Urban Water Coalition Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0194-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

7-12 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

The Proposed Rule Will Likely Impose a Significant Burden on Regulators and the Regulated Community

The additional requirements imposed by the Proposed Rule on regulators and the regulated community will place a significant burden on affected states and permittees, as compared to the current rules. EPA acknowledges that the Proposal Rule contains "numerous revisions" to the regulations. 81 Fed. Reg. at 31364. EPA further acknowledges that the Proposed Rule is a "significant regulatory action" under EO 12866 because it raises "novel legal and policy issues." Id. In its assessment of the Proposed Rule, however, EPA states in a conclusory manner that the revisions would "generally" not result in new or increased impacts or information collection by authorized states or the regulated community. Id. The extent and character of the proposed revisions do not support the conclusion that the Proposed Rule only minimally burdens affected states and the regulated community.

The Proposed Rule contains significant changes from the current regulatory scheme that are likely to significantly increase the burden on regulators and the regulated community. For example, the proposed revisions to 40 C.F.R. § 124.56 require specific documentation in the permit fact sheet to ensure "comprehensive and focused fact sheets." 81 Fed. Reg. at 31360. The impetus for this change was "widespread deficiencies in state fact sheet quality." Id. If current practices are largely deficient and the Proposed Rule requires additional documentation, this will increase the burden on regulators and the regulated community. In addition, depending on the procedures utilized by a particular state to develop permit terms and conditions, the addition of an antidegradation reference, new processes for establishing dilution allowances and new reasonable potential determination analysis mandates may increase the burden on states and permittees beyond what the Proposed Rule indicates in its conclusory analysis. Further, a permittee operating under an administrative continued permit may experience a significantly increased burden in the event its permit is designated a "proposed permit" under the novel regulatory scheme set forth in the Proposed Rule.

Given the significant changes proposed, it does not appear that EPA completed sufficient inquiry to conclude that the Proposed Rule will not impose significant burden on states or the regulated community. Therefore, we request EPA reconsider this conclusion and, if it is unsupported, not adopt the Proposed Rule.

Given the significant changes proposed, it does not appear that EPA completed sufficient inquiry to conclude that the Proposed Rule will not impose significant burden on states or the regulated community. Therefore, we request EPA reconsider this conclusion and, if it is unsupported, not adopt the Proposed Rule.

Commenter Name: Kevin Frederick Commenter Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

7-13 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0195-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56) - WDEQ does not support EPA requiring the level of specificity proposed for documentation and contrary to EPA's assessment, believes that complying with the new fact sheet requirements will be a significant burden.

Commenter Name: Marty Haroldson Commenter Affiliation: North Dakota Department of Health Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0236-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

The Department would like EPA to clarify what documents specifically need to be posted on a state's website. We are required by statute to publish public notices in the local newspaper and we currently post them on our website. The Department is also concerned that notice of intents are going to be made mandatory to be posted to our website. This requirement would increase the amount of time and funding needed to comply.

Commenter Name: Carla Reid Commenter Affiliation: Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0237-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

WSSC's comments address the effects of the proposed clarification that "POTWs are required to submit, as part of their application, relevant information from all industrial users (SIUs [significant industrial users] and NSCIUs [nonsignificant categorical industrial users])."

The Federal Register asserts that its proposed language at 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6) would "impose no new burden" to POTWs [81 Federal Register 31351, May 18, 2016]. However, if EPA's proposal to revise the language in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6) to require POTWs applying for a NPDES permit to also submit information for nonsignificant categorical industrial users (NSCIUs), this would add a tremendous burden on POTWs that have a large number of NSCIUs.

Currently, 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i) states that NDPES permit applicants must submit the number of significant industrial users and significant categorical industrial users discharging to the

7-14 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

POTW, and 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii) states that POTWs with one or more SIUs must provide the following information for each SIU:

• Name and mailing address;

• Description of all industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge

• Principal products and raw materials of the SIU that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge

• Average daily volume of wastewater discharged; • Whether the SIU is subject to local limits;

• Whether the SIU is subject to categorical standards; and

• Whether any problems at the POTW have been attributed to the SIU in the past 4.5 years.

Let us consider a POTW' s potential burden if the proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental Category were promulgated. As stated in the proposed rule, "EPA does not propose to prohibit a Control Authority from finding a dental office may qualify as an NSCIU on an individual basis." [79 Federal Register 63281, October 22, 2014]. Based on WSSC's surveying of the dental facilities in 2005 and subsequent updates regarding the total number of dental facilities within our service area in 2011, WSSC could have over 130 dental facilities1 classified as NSCIU. [We understand NSCIU is defined as a CIU that does not discharge more than 100 gallons per day of total categorical wastewater, has consistently complied with all applicable categorical pretreatment standards and requirements, and never discharges any untreated concentrated wastewater.] Currently WSSC permits and regulates 51 SIUs. Therefore, if WSSC is required to provide specific information for the projected 130 dental facilities classified as NSCIU, this could well equate to almost a 4-fold increase in the number of facilities that WSSC must provide information for in the NPDES permitting process. Therefore, we strongly urge EPA to reconsider the adoption of the proposed language change to require POTWs to submit information regarding their NSCIU s.

1 In 2005, WSSC issued 1,023 Dental Surveys to dental facilities within its service area. 8.1 percent of all dentists that returned the survey indicated that they have an installed dental amalgam separator. In 2011, WSSC received an updated list of dental facilities within our service area of 1, 718 dental facilities.

Commenter Name: Roy McAuley Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Pulp & Paper Council (APPCO) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0239-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

7-15 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4. EPA’s proposal for revisions to the Fact Sheet merely add work (and cost) to the permitting agency and permittee, without any environmental quality improvement.

Commenter Name: Andrew C. Brought Commenter Affiliation: SpencerFane LLP Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0242-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

Furthermore, the EPA states that implementing the proposed new 40 CFR 123.44 would not result in any additional burdens on authorized State NPDES programs. This finding is not accurate for a number of reasons. As just one example, EPA's analysis of 40 CFR 123.44 fails to include any mention that many permit holders will likely appeal permits issued by EPA. Such appeals would be administratively burdensome and costly for the permittee and the authorized State NPDES programs that the permit was issued under, or perhaps the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board. The EPA-issued permits will likely be challenged because in nearly all instances the expired permits are complicated and entail permit limits that would be expensive to comply with.

Commenter Name: William J. Canary Commenter Affiliation: Business Council of Alabama (BCA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0245-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment Excerpt:

Additional Proposed Provisions that Will Likely Raise Permitting Fees

EPA has included in the Proposed Rule a number of requirements that will further strain the limited resources of permitting authorities. To comply with them, these authorities will likely look to pass through the additional associated costs onto permit applicants. For this reason, BCA opposes the public notice and permit fact sheet requirements set out in the Proposed Rule. Specifically, BCA believes EPA should do away with the prescriptive fact sheet requirements the agency has proposed for 40 C.F.R. § 124.56, as well as the requirement in § 124.10 that final permits, fact sheets, and response to comments be posted on the permitting authority's website for the entirety of the permit term.

7-16 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Nolan Stone and William Hammerich Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Livestock Association (CLA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0247-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

V. EPA’s analysis pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) is sorely lacking.

EPA states, “[t]his action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.” CLA disagrees with this statement, especially in relation to the proposed revision regarding objection to administratively continued permits (40 CFR 123.44). By creating new federal oversight to the states’ ability to administratively continue permits, this revision will impose significant burden on the states in their administration of the NPDES program. This additional duty on the states may indeed trigger the threshold for UMRA. Unfortunately, EPA’s documentation does not provide any detailed analysis of the cost burden associated with these regulatory revisions. CLA requests that EPA consider the impact of the aforementioned revision prior to finalization of the proposal and this consideration should necessarily include a robust analysis of the costs imposed on states by these regulatory revisions.

Commenter Name: Priscilla Howell Commenter Affiliation: City of Henderson Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0251-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

As a result of the proposed language, NDEP may have to insert hard effluent limits into the chronic toxicity language in Nevada's NPDES permits for discharges to the Colorado River. The current permitting process in Nevada has successfully protected water quality in the state's receiving water bodies and as such, hard effluent limits are not necessary. The addition of these limits may add an undue burden to the state's permittees.

Commenter Name: Bill Matthews Commenter Affiliation: Cleo Corporation Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0252-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

7-17 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

It's Not Correct that No Additional Effort or Costs Are Necessary To Show Mixing Allowances Are Appropriate. The Proposal is positioned as an updating of the requirements to be followed in the writing of discharge permits under the NPDES program. However, tucked into the middle of the document is a policy proposal to require presentation of evidence to prove that dilution allowances for a receiving stream are "appropriate". Under section IV. Impacts, the Proposal suggests that this proposal will not require the collecting of new information, the conducting of new calculations, or new or increased effort or costs. It further states the supporting of a dilution allowance would only rely upon existing information or a request by the permitting authority for more information. It even states in the preamble of the Proposal that Conducting a basic background inquiry into a receiving waters's assimilative capacity would be necessary to grant the dilution allowance. The generation of more information usually has a cost. Obviously, the IV. Impacts section of the proposal should include a truthful examination of the likely costs or range of costs for this additional information and discuss the cost & benefits for consideration by the reader and regulated community.

Commenter Name: Julie Nahrgang Commenter Affiliation: Water Environment Association of Texas (WEAT), Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies (TACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0259-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Overall, the proposed revisions that WEAT and TACWA are providing comments – addressed individually below – would result in new and unnecessary burdens on applicants.

Commenter Name: Julie Nahrgang Commenter Affiliation: Water Environment Association of Texas (WEAT), Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies (TACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0259-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment Excerpt:

Contrary to this assertion, the impacts of certain proposed changes would go well beyond codifying existing practices and requirements and instead would shift the burden or increase the

7-18 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments burden of certain processes in the NPDES application process to applicants. These proposed changes would thus have the potential to impede, rather than assist, applicants and even state permitting authorities in effectively and efficiently navigating the NPDES permitting process. Namely, the implementation of these provisions would require significantly more information from applicants and thus produce a fiscal impact not acknowledged by the proposed rule

Commenter Name: David L. Smiga Commenter Affiliation: United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0408-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

U. S. Steel does not believe that EPA considering administratively continued permits as "proposed permits" would effectively achieve EPA's goal of more timely reissuance of state NPDES permits and strongly supports EPA in considering other regulatory mechanisms to achieve this goal. This rule appears to drastically increase the work load of both state and federal permitting employees while the punishment for lack of results rests solely with the permittee. While we, as the permittee, have no control over the results of the regulatory agencies at meeting deadlines, our permits are in jeopardy.

Due to the increased workload on state permit engineers, more time will be spent on responding to USEP A's notices and requests and less time on the permit actions. This will have a negative effect on permit timeliness. Rather than a broad brush approach, EPA should target those states which are struggling and invest time into clearing their backlog. A comparison of states within the same region could highlight efficiencies that some states are currently utilizing that other states could benefit from. Utilizing best practices from state to state would result in improvements in permitting efficiency and correlate well with what industry does to improve programs and processes.

In the March 2004 memo referenced in the proposed rule ("Permitting for Environmental Results: Permit Issuance and Priority Permits"), it discusses three program components for NPDES permitting. The "Efficiency" component of this memo includes references to a variety of tools and support available to Regions and States in order to streamline the permit reissuance process, including electronic tools, guidance, and contract vehicles. It is unclear what components of this program have been widely implemented and their success within the NPDES program. In any case, this memo displays some of the many options already available to EPA and State agencies that are within current legal authorities to improve the permitting process and eliminate permit backlogs.

Commenter Name: David L. Smiga Commenter Affiliation: United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel)

7-19 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0408-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment Excerpt:

Issue: EPA is seeking comment on whether proposed revisions to public notice requirements in 40 CFR 124.10(c) should be expanded to include NPDES non-major individual and general permits

Comment:

U. S. Steel does not support expanded public notice requirements to include NPDES non-major individual and general permits. This revision would lengthen the process for obtaining any new permit or permit modification, even for those permit actions which are not environmentally significant.

This proposal would significantly increase the burden on state permitting agencies and would almost certainly increase the backlog of minor and general permits, which is not consistent with the EPA's stated goal of more timely issuance of state NPDES permits.

Commenter Name: Mary Anne Nelson Commenter Affiliation: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0413-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

In the proposed NPDES Updates Rule, EPA has offered up a number of important and helpful provisions that will update the national NPDES regulations to reflect current implementation practices. However, EPA also has proposed several controversial provisions that IDEQ does not support. IDEQ is concerned that some provisions in the proposed rule could be very difficult and costly to implement, could detrimentally impact the proposed benefits, and in some cases, redirect resources away from water quality improvements and towards administrative activities. IDEQ is grateful for the opportunity to comment on these proposed revisions and has provided several recommendations to improve the overall efficacy and implementation of the proposed rule.

Commenter Name: Adam Link Commenter Affiliation: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0416-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

7-20 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

The proposed NPDES Application and Updates Rule includes revisions to § 122.45(b) that will require permitting authorities to calculate effluent limits for POTWs using design flow only where the limits are based on technology standards. Existing regulation states that POTW permit effluent limitations, standards, and prohibitions shall be calculated based on design flow. This is clearly a significant change to existing regulations as it will allow permitting authorities to use flow other than design (e.g. current flow, estimated flow, etc.) as the basis for calculating effluent limitations for POTWs.

Existing regulations stipulate the use of design flow in calculation of effluent limitations for POTWs for a number of reasons. POTWs provide an essential service to public health, are designed and constructed through careful planning processes to meet future growth, and represent a major investment of public funds. Unlike privately owned industrial dischargers who can fully control production levels in their facilities, discharge flow rates from most POTWs are affected by population growth, water usage rates, service area growth, and climatic conditions and, as such, are subject to changes beyond their control. The duration and severity of climatic variations (such as the recent drought in California) have been and will continue to be difficult to predict, and wastewater treatment is always subject to significant variability.

The negative impact of the change to non-design flows as the basis for calculating mass-based effluent limitations would be particularly significant in light of the proposed changes to the anti-backsliding provisions, which would prevent future changes in effluent limitations even as flows increase, unless the change would result in attainment of the water quality standard when a total maximum daily load has been established. POTWs would accrue violations due to flow increases beyond their control and would be unable to fully utilize the design capacity of their facilities, thereby stranding assets financed by public funding, and would need to build additional treatment facilities to compensate for loss of operational capacity.

CASA strongly recommends against this change and requests that the proposed revisions to § 122.45(b) be removed from the proposed rule in their entirety.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

EPA has neither provided, nor apparently conducted, any analysis regarding the burden or costs associated with its proposed changes. Despite this, EPA baldly asserts its proposed changes will

7-21 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments not result in any additional effort, information collection, burdens, or costs for states or permittees. As UWAG’s comments how, that is simply not the case.

5. EPA’s proposal would have significant and substantial negative budgetary and planning impacts on EPA, states, and permittees, none of which has been considered.

As discussed below in Section IV, among other places, EPA has not considered any impacts of its proposed Update Rule on its own budget, resources, or planning, as well as on those of states or permittees. This is problematic, particularly because EPA’s own backlog rate for EPA-issued and administratively continued permits is worse than the states; in 2015, the majority of EPA Regions have a worse permit backlog rate than the states:

EPA Average % State Permits Average % EPA Permits Region Current Current Region 1 61.3% 43.5% Region 2 46.1% 47.0% Region 3 73.5% 40.0% Region 4 77.7% N/A Region 5 84.4% N/A Region 6 85.1% 86.7% Region 7 62.0% N/A Region 8 72.5% 66.7% Region 9 85.4% 40% Region 10 75.1% 47.3%

EPA recently published permit backlog information current through April 2016, which continues to show that most EPA Regions have a poorer backlog rate.29 This information shows that, based on current levels of personnel and resources, EPA cannot keep up with the permit workload (or chooses not to based on the allocation of Agency resources to other priorities). Use of the objection provision will require substantial time and resources (including compliance with the ESA and National Historic Preservation Act, which are time-consuming and expensive) and will only add to EPA’s work load. EPA has not identified that it has the personnel with experience, the budget, or the resources for these activities. EPA’s statements in the Sierra Club case only confirm its limited resources.

Use of the objection provision also will increase the financial and resource burden on states, whose ability to plan and prioritize based on their own interests will be forever disrupted. Furthermore, applying the objection provision may be more damaging to the environment than less, as EPA argued and the court agreed in Sierra Club.30 Likewise, use of the objection provision will substantially impact permittees’ ability to make and keep long-term capital investment, operational, and maintenance plans based on the certainty of their NPDES permits, as well as their states’ permitting program processes. Similar to its effect on states, the proposal also will disrupt permittees’ planning, prioritizing, and budgeting processes, thereby increasing

7-22 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments permittee financial and resource burdens beyond those typically encountered during the permit renewal process.31

EPA has failed to address the costs and burdens of all of these issues, including in its 2012 Information Collection Request (“ICR”) document it provided in the docket.32

EPA should not promulgate the administratively continued permits re-review and objection provision or modify the definition of proposed permit.

29 Permit backlog information obtained from EPA, NPDES Permit Status Reports, available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-permit-status-reports (last visited July 14, 2016).

30 In re Sierra Club, 2013 WL 1955877 at *1 (agreeing with EPA that allowing a third-party to dictate the order in which EPA processes permits may be more damaging to the environment because it will delay EPA’s processing of permits that EPA has prioritized for processing based on its judgment regarding the environmental impacts of permittees’ activities).

31 As discussed above, EPA-issued permits must comply with the ESA and NHPA, among other things, that necessarily will make an EPA-led permit process longer and more expensive.

32 EPA’s statement that its proposed change to the definition of “proposed permit” simply improves “programmatic clarity” and does not result in substantive changes to the existing NPDES permitting program is unsupportable. 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,364. Providing itself with a new regulatory tool to re-review and object to state-issued permits does not clarify anything; it is new. It also subjects previously issued permits to re-review and changes dramatically the structure and balance of NPDES permitting. Furthermore, the idea that EPA’s commandeering and re-ordering of a state’s review of a permit, or forcing states to engage with EPA when they otherwise would not have to, does not result in any new or increased burden on states also is unsupportable. Id. at 31,366.

K. UWAG Generally Supports EPA’s Proposed Public Notice Changes

EPA proposes to allow states to provide public notices of permitting actions for NPDES major permits and general permits on the permitting authority’s website in lieu of in the newspaper. Id. at 31,358. UWAG generally supports EPA’s proposal.

UWAG, however, questions why EPA added that, if this option is selected by a permitting authority, the regulator must also publish the draft permit and fact sheet during the comment period and then publish the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments, keeping them there until the permit is terminated or reissued. Id. at 31,372. EPA provides no reasoning for these additional requirements. These requirements do not exist for the current requirements regarding newspaper publication. EPA appears to be either engaged in an archiving exercise or seeking to foist access requirements on states. While some agencies may choose voluntarily to publish some permit documents for some of their permits online (or do so as directed by state

7-23 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments law), in light of the volume of many states’ permitting programs, an inflexible requirement to do so for all permits could pose a significant burden on states.46 These types of burdens may be passed along to permit applicants. That burden is unjustified given that interested members of the public need only contact the agency, using the information on the public notice, to obtain copies of permits for which they have interest (assuming it has not been posted online by the permitting authority voluntarily or in compliance with state law). This part of the proposal should be removed.

This proposal creates new, additional informational burden and costs on states and operators, none of which has been considered in EPA’s ICR or otherwise.

46 See ADEM Cmts. at 4 (further explaining the significant burden this “unfunded mandate” creates, and arguing that it is inappropriate for EPA to prescribe the manner in which state agencies make public records available to the public).

M. EPA’s New Fact Sheet Requirements Create Serious Cost and Burden Issues for States and Permittees That EPA Has Not Considered.

EPA proposes new requirements for the contents of permit fact sheet. Id. at 31,360-64. In so doing, EPA states that the current 40 C.F.R. § 124.56 contains the “basic requirements” of information that must be provided in the fact sheet. Id. at 31,360 (stating also that, while the terms and conditions are set forth in the permit, the record of the permitting process is set out in the fact sheet and the administrative record). Through the proposal, EPA seeks to specify and “precisely outline” the information required for permit fact sheets to make them more thorough and to provide the public access to a clear and transparent record of the permit process. Id. EPA also does not explain why the public needs additional calculations and explanations and pages upon pages of information in a fact sheet. It does not provide any examples of the public not being able to access fact sheets and administrative records or examples of where the public was unable to determine what happened in the permitting process or why an agency made the decisions it did. EPA and state agencies all are subject to administrative procedure acts or related requirements that set forth the standards governing the agencies’ conduct, record building, interaction with the public, and decision-making. EPA need not, without any justification, alter states’ administrative requirements in the name of neatly packaging and overly explaining every decision it made as part of a permitting process.

Also in support for this proposal, EPA states that its review of state-issued permits shows that the fact sheets are not even meeting the requirements of the current regulations. That does not justify EPA’s need to change the regulation. EPA reviews every state-issued permit and its fact sheet. If EPA believed that a fact sheet was deficient, it had every opportunity to say so during its review. Apparently, EPA chose not to. That is an EPA review issue, not a fact sheet issue. Further, changing the regulations to require additional calculations and explanation would not address this issue. EPA should provide a justification for its action.

7-24 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Even a cursory comparison of the current and proposed § 124.56 demonstrates that EPA’s proposal constitutes a major overhaul of the fact sheet requirements: it contains requirements that will impose significantly increased costs and burdens on regulators and permit applicants. For example, current § 124.56(a) consists of 12 lines, while proposed § 124.56(a) takes up nearly an entire Federal Register page. Even assuming EPA could argue that all of the requirements in proposed § 124.56(a) were somehow encompassed within the 12 lines of current § 124.56, EPA cannot credibly conclude, as it has in the preamble, that these changes will not result in an increased burden or cost, or collection of information. EPA is demanding that states (and by extension, operators) perform much more work. It defies logic to ask someone to perform more work and then tell them it has not increased their burden or the costs to do so. This proposal creates new, additional informational burden/costs on states and operators, none of which has been considered in EPA’s ICR or otherwise. EPA has not provided a reasonable, much less compelling, justification for this proposal, which will create serious cost and burden issues for the states and permittees.

Notwithstanding the forgoing, UWAG recognizes that fact sheets can, in addition to providing general information to the public about the permit, provide benefits to permittees and the issuing agency during and after the permitting process. As such, UWAG urges EPA not to finalize the fact sheet change as proposed, but instead to work with states and the stakeholders to determine an acceptable level of fact sheet information balanced with the costs and burdens of the work related thereto.47 In so doing, UWAG urges EPA to ensure that any requirements provide the states flexibility to be able to tailor fact sheets to the facts at issue for the numerous and varied permitting circumstances they encounter.

47 See ADEM Cmts. at 5-6 (describing the significant costs and burdens this proposed change will impose, and requesting that EPA “revisit the proposed regulations with the states”).

IV. EPA Must Provide a Current and Accurate ICR for Public Review; EPA Has Failed to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Regarding compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), the preamble says the changes to regulations and forms “will be submitted” to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, but it doesn’t say when. Id. at 31,366. The public must be able to review timely and accurate information, and EPA has failed to provide any.

The preamble says that the ICR describes the “burden and costs” of the Update Rule and proposed changes to the forms and that “EPA estimates that the burden associated with these proposed changes would not change from the burden estimates contained in existing ICRs [because the EPA’s proposals do] not impose any new information collection burden under PRA.” Id. at 31,367. As discussed herein, that statement is not accurate. Further, the ICR’s supporting statement that EPA placed in the docket is from 2012 and does not consider – and could not have taken into account – the revised application forms and EPA’s newly proposed

7-25 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments regulatory changes. We note also that, in December 2015, EPA submitted a new ICR supporting statement under the same numbers as the 2012 document. Like the 2012 document, it also does not take into account the revised application forms and EPA’s newly proposed regulatory changes. Essentially, EPA has published completely unsupported statements in the preamble that the Update Rule and the changes to the application forms will impose no new information collection burdens or otherwise will not change anything about the burden and costs of states’ and permittees’ compliance with the NPDES program. It is not clear how EPA can make these statements; it has not done the analyses. And, as discussed above, those conclusions do not hold up against even the simplest of scrutiny.

The public and stakeholders should not be misled by unsupported, conclusory statements. They deserve to be able to review timely and accurate information, and EPA has failed to provide any. Further, if the PRA process means anything, it is to inform EPA of the burdens and costs of its decisions and to compel EPA to find ways to minimize them. If EPA simply puts off compliance with the PRA and makes unsupported, conclusory statements regarding them, it has not done its job. UWAG urges EPA to undertake these analyses in an open and transparent process prior to finalizing any final rule.

Similarly, EPA states that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”). As demonstrated above, the Update Rule and the revised forms create substantial new burdens that will fall on all permittees, including small entities. EPA must comply with the RFA and fairly and fully analyze the economic burdens of its proposal.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment Excerpt:

The TCEQ disagrees with EPA’s overall characterization that the rule is simply codifying currently established practices and does not result in new or increased workloads or require the collection of additional information.

The costs of the implementation of the proposed revisions seem to be understated, depending on the degree that changes in procedures are needed (e.g., expansion of fact sheets, new analytical procedures, etc.), and those costs could be significant. There would be upfront costs related to changing the TCEQ processes and document formats, as well as additional ongoing cost increases related to the additional time required to prepare the larger documents and additional detailed analyses.

7-26 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

This proposed rule, in the TCEQ’s opinion, establishes numerous conditions which will likely result in increased workloads and burden on NPDES permit writers as well as the requirement to collect new information in permit applications (resulting in impacts on regulated entities and permitting authorities). Specific areas where increased workloads or new information collection will be required are discussed below.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 37

Comment Excerpt:

The proposed rules require the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments (if applicable) to remain on the state’s web site for the duration of the permit term. Requiring this would result in increased costs and workload related to scanning and uploading these documents. The documents are publicly available through Freedom of Information Act request or by visiting the TCEQ Central File Room. Additionally, certain data elements from issued permits are available via the TCEQ online web queries and via the EPA’s ECHO. The TCEQ is opposed to the requirement to post the final permit, fact sheet, and response to comments on the state’s website.

Commenter Name: Richard A. Hyde Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 41

Comment Excerpt:

Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

The TCEQ does not support certain aspects to the minimum fact sheet requirement revisions proposed in 40 CFR 124.56.

The TCEQ disputes the EPA’s statement in the rule preamble that rule revisions in this section will reduce permit writer workload. The proposed revisions will definitely increase workload, as the EPA is proposing required new documentation in fact sheets to support permit development. The TCEQ is concerned with the requirement to include a reasonable potential analysis for all narrative water quality standards, with specific concerns related to color and nutrients. These fact sheet rationales are new requirements and will likely result in the requirement to collect new information from applicants and conduct additional analyses.

The following proposed rule changes all increase workload:

1. The requirement to develop fact sheet rationale related to best management practices (BMP) in permits is a new requirement. 2. The requirement to list all pollutants analyzed related to reasonable potential analysis will effectively require inclusion of all application effluent data, already available in the administrative record.

7-27 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

3. The requirement to include all ambient data used in dilution analysis and, when data is not available, to provide justification is a new requirement. The TCEQ is also concerned with potential EPA objections to the permitting authority’s rationale as to why ambient data is not available. 4. The requirement to re-justify effluent monitoring locations, monitoring frequencies, sample types, and test methods are all new requirements. 5. For general permit fact sheets, the TCEQ is concerned with conducting reasonable potential analysis for toxic pollutants. General permits are developed with minimum technology-based effluent limitations for the categories of discharges authorized in the general permit, water quality-based effluent limitations are compared to these technology-based limitations, and the more restrictive limitation is proposed in the general permit. Performing some type of reasonable potential analysis for general permit development outside of the above described process is not justified.

Commenter Name: Leanne Tippett Mosby Commenter Affiliation: Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0442-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Also, the proposed rule suggests that the revisions would not result in new or increased workload for permitting authorities/authorized states; however, there are several places within the rule which will likely result in more work for our permit staff.

We recommend the rulemaking be revised to accurately characterize the fiscal/workload impact to permitting authorities. The impact of this rule amendment will be longer and more detailed permit fact sheets, the collection of additional data not currently required, and response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) objections to administratively continued permits. All of these outcomes will have resource/workload implications. The department's list of expired permits waiting to be renewed continues to increase due in part to the need to address other federal rule amendments already on the books such as the Electronic Reporting Rule, 316b Rule, and the Coal Combustion Residual Rule. This iule amendment is likely to result in additional delays.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt:

General Observations

7-28 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The NPDES program has achieved significant reductions in pollutant loads since it was established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972, and has resulted in substantial improvement to the water quality, even as the number of permitted facilities has greatly increased and federal investment in the program has remained steady or declined. Over the last four decades the number of sources requiring permits has increased from 50,000 to over 700,000.2 Along with this growth, EPA continues to refine the rules by updating effluent guidelines aimed at removing greater amounts of pollution to achieve incrementally smaller improvements in water quality.

Increased regulatory complexity requires greater environmental, economic, and engineering analyses. A more robust Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program has also added to the NPDES program workload, driving up the costs and staff resources to issue a permit. Furthermore, fact sheets are commonly much more detailed and the permit renewal process can be protracted. Several states have backlogs of expired permits, at least in part the result of the ever-increasing list of new requirements. That said, even with all of the new expectations, compliance rates in many states have improved over the years, and remaining noncompliance for point sources is notably overshadowed by the water quality impacts from nonpoint sources.3 The cumulative effect of all of these new and increasingly complex requirements should not go unnoticed. States and EPA should be working together to maintain the current progress, avoid future declines in water quality, and invest in those program areas where meaningful water quality benefits can be achieved.

While EPA has taken the position that these proposed revisions would generally not result in new or increased workload for authorized states, ACWA does not believe this is, in fact, the case. There are several aspects to the proposed rule changes where states anticipate more, and not less work result from the proposed rule changes. For example, significantly longer and more detailed fact sheets require substantially more resources from delegated state programs in their development and review. Additional data acquisition and analysis required in developing permits (e.g. additional data for reasonable potential analysis, ambient water quality data for mixing zones, etc.) in fact do require substantially greater resources allocations to these efforts by authorized programs. Likewise, all of the potential extra requirements EPA is considering that could come attached to publishing draft permits on the web have resource implications. Responding to EPA objections or other actions regarding administratively continued permits has very substantial resource implications for authorized states.

Over the last few years, states’ permitting processes have become much more efficient as staffing and total program funds have decreased and federal requirements have increased. Nonetheless, nearly all states have had to prioritize permit workloads. Under current staffing levels, it would be unrealistic to assume that all of the relatively new water program rules can successfully be implemented without potentially increasing the permit backlog. Indeed, it is ACWA’s understanding that there are currently 18,029 backlogged permits.4

This current proposed rule fails to acknowledge the cumulative impact of all the new NPDES program updates states have been asked to implement over the last few years, including new antidegradation requirements (which is just one of six (6) key program area modifications in the August 2015 Update of the National Water Quality Standards Regulation), §316 Cooling Water Intake Rule, the Steam Electric Rule, the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, pesticide

7-29 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments permitting, the sufficiently sensitive methods rule, enhanced public notifications for Combined Sewer Overflows, the coal ash rule, the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Rule, and the soon to be finalized new Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Remand Rule.

Recommendation 1: EPA should work closely with ACWA and the states to better understand potential administrative and operational resource impacts of this proposed rule and do a better job describing, analyzing, and mitigating resource implications associated with NPDES Updates Rule implementation.

Recommendation 2: EPA should state in the preamble that the agency does not expect any of the new finalized provisions to be immediately incorporated into state’s permits and that states will be afforded opportunity to revise their statutes, revise their regulations/programs, and incorporate changes to permits as they come up for renewal but no sooner than two years after the effective date.

2 Scope and Regulatory Framework of the NPDES Program, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/scope-and- regulatory- framework-of-the-npdes-program.pdf (last visited Aug. 2, 2016).

3 Water Quality Assessment and TMDLs: National Summary of State Information: National Probable Sources Contributing to Impairments, https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control#prob_source (last visited Aug. 2, 2016).

4 Percent Current Status - Major, Minor, and Non-Stormwater General Permit Covered Facilities, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 2016-05/documents/mid- year_fy2016_non-tribal_backlog_summary_report_card.pdf (last visited Aug. 2, 2016).

Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

States support fact sheets providing a basic level of understanding for how a permit was developed and that "sets forth the principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological, and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit.” However, many states do not support EPA requiring the level of specificity proposed in the rule for documentation. ACWA and states disagree with EPA’s assessment that complying with the new fact sheet requirements will not be a significant burden. Beyond the work of attempting to distill a significant amount of analysis to incorporate into these documents, several states are also concerned there will be more “back and forth” with the Regions, leading to further delays and possible increases in permit backlogs. Proposing to add sample type, monitoring frequency, and other parameters carried forward from previous permits does not seem necessary when considering how permits evolve over time. Many of the original parameters were first established

7-30 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments by BPJ during initial issuance which does, in fact, require documentation and explanation. Upon the next reissuance of the permit these parameters then become BPT/BCT/BAT (as applicable) and a stand-alone reference just as any EPA promulgated guideline.

Summary

However, EPA also has proposed several controversial provisions that states cannot support. Many states are concerned that some provisions in the proposed rule could be very difficult and costly to implement, could detrimentally impact the proposed benefits, and in some cases, redirect resources away from water quality improvements and towards administrative activities. ACWA has provided you with several recommendations that we think will improve the overall efficacy and implementation of the proposed rule and stand ready to work with you to incorporate those recommendations.

Commenter Name: Jack C. Bender Commenter Affiliation: Utility Information Exchange of Kentucky Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0444-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

Dilution Allowance in Determining Water Quality-based Effluent Limits - 40 CFR

122.44( d)(l)(ii) and (vii)

The proposed change would also impose huge new burdens on states and NPDES permittees. Background concentrations of pollutants in receiving waters can vary significantly based on short term and long term flow conditions and other circumstances within the watershed. The preamble to the proposed rule suggests that if background concentrations cannot be accurately determined, which is undeniably a difficult and time-consuming task, the permitting agency should not allow any dilution allowance. In many cases, scientists and other experts are the only individuals that can accurately determine receiving stream water quality given their dynamic and complex nature. Accordingly, contrary to EPA's assertion, this proposed change would create huge new burdens on states and dischargers already constrained for resources. It is unclear what level of data collection over a period of months or years would be deemed adequate for such an exercise.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)

7-31 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

In the proposed rule, EPA suggests that this rule will have minimum burden on state NPDES programs. However, the impact of this rule on the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) Permit program under the authority of the LDEQ is actually quite substantial and significant as indicated in the itemized section below. There is also a cumulative effect as the recently promulgated Antidegradation, 316(b), and E-Reporting rules will achieve full implementation at the same approximate time in 2018 as this rule. In a period of limited resources, the massive work load that will be incurred by the cumulative effect of all ofthese rules on state/tribal regulatory programs cannot be overstated. Accomplishing these tasks would even be difficult at higher staffing levels that the agency once had over a decade ago. Under current agency staffing levels, LDEQ will be unable to successfully implement these rules without a growing backlog and drain on already limited resources.

Overall impact cost to implement this regulation would be a one-time charge of 1125 man-hours at a total cost of $54,490 to promulgate regulation changes and 174 man-hours at a total cost of $6,960 to make changes to applications. Recurring cost would be 78,000 man-hours at a total cost of 3.2 MM dollars/year. Additional significant recurring costs of 5 MM dollars per year would be incurred until background sampling and assimilative capacities were calculated for all existing dischargers for the period of 5 years following promulgation of this regulation, assuming all work is done by LDEQ.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment Excerpt: the revision of all permit applications will require significant resources, approximately 174 man hours at a one-time cost of 6,960 dollars.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

7-32 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

It is estimated that performing background calculations involving DO, would take approximately 50 man hours per application. See below for costs:

Permit Universe as of 5/30/16 Total# Permits $Cost per 50 hrs Total Cost, $ Majors 234 1832 428,688 Minors 1072 1832 1,963,904 Non-Stormwater Generals 9840 1832 18,026,880 Stormwater Generals 2549 1832 4,669,768 Total: 13,695 25,089,924~25MM

Averaged over 5 years, $25MM/5 = $5MM per year recurring cost is estimated until ambient background modeling DO for all existing dischargers is complete. This does not account for new dischargers, which would add to the total cost. There are typically 1200 additional new permitted dischargers each year, most of them are generals that would add an additional $2,198,400 recurring cost. During the 5 years after promulgation of the rule, there would be a $7MM recurring annual cost. After this time frame the value would drop to about $2MM per year.

If the background sampling and the assimilative capacity analysis requirement was imposed on the permittee for DO and other parameters due to state resource limitations, this would likely cost approximately $5,000 to $25,000 dollars depending on what parameters needed to be sampled and what analyses needed to be conducted. This represents a considerable cost range of $68,475,000 - $342,375,000, total cost, $13,695,000 - $68,475,000 per year for the first 5 years. After 5 years, this value would drop to 6MM to 30MM per year.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment Excerpt:

Additionally, the preamble (p. 31359, 2nd paragraph) states EPA is also seeking comments on the proposed revisions to include all non-major NPDES permits and general permits. As general permits are mentioned in two separate instances, it can only be assumed EPA is referencing the public notice of the NOIs or letters of authorization, not the master general permit. The proposed

7-33 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments rule language does not distinguish between master general permit issuances and authorizations granted under a master general permit. Therefore, LDEQ requests clarification from EPA on the public notice of NO Is. If EPA's intention is to require public noticing of all NOIs submitted for coverage under a master general permit, LDEQ strongly objects, as this circumvents the purpose of issuing a master general permit. Master general permits covering permitted activities are public noticed already as required under 40 CFR 124.1 O/LAC 3113.C. There is no statutory requirement in the Clean Water Act which would require a second public notice for individual authorizations under a general permit, except in the case of Phase II MS4s. Both LDEQ and EPA issue master general permits, which grant automatic coverage within a period of time after a completed NOI is received. For example, construction general permit coverages are granted authorization 48 hours after a completed NOI is received, unless otherwise notified by LDEQ. In order to comply with such a requirement, significant staff resources would be required to both reopen and modify all 26 LDEQ master general permits to incorporate a public notice period. Additionally, with a universe of over 12,000 authorizations and substantially more than any other state in EPA Region 6 (over double that of any other state in the region), public noticing each and every authorization is not a viable option in consideration of lower staffing levels and funding in recent years. To do so, would cost 24,000 man-hours and 1.3 MM additional dollars each year (using provisions of the new regulations of publishing notices on the internet).

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment Excerpt:

The rule also proposes to update the language at §124.l0 (2)(iv) to require the states to post final permits, fact sheet, and response to comments to the website on the day of issuance. While LDEQ does not object to making these files electronically available, the requirement must allow sufficient time for the document to make it through the administrative process (mail out and scanning into the state's electronic document management system).

LDEQ proposes the regulation allow for a time-frame of thirty days. LDEQ would realize annual savings of$169,241 and 516 man-hours by publishing notices and associated permits and factsheets/statements of basis on the internet.

Commenter Name: Bruce Fielding Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment Excerpt:

7-34 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

IV. Impacts

EPA makes claims of incidental or no cost impact to state programs as a result of promulgation of this rule. This is not an accurate statement as far as LDEQ's LPDES program is concerned. In addition to costs mentioned under specific comments for Antidegradation Ill.B.5, Dilution Allowances Ill.B.6, Comments in Response to NPDES Public Notice Requirements lII.C.1, and Fact Sheet Requirements lII.C.3, substantial costs may be incurred by promulgating the necessary changes in the state rules. Cost impacts here are estimated to be 1125 man-hours with an average cost of 48.43 dollars an hour for a total of 54,490 dollars.

Commenter Name: Jeffrey L. West Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0457-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

Fact Sheet Requirements {40 CFR 124.56): Xcel Energy welcomes the proposed changes pertaining to the fact sheet requirements. We agree that the proposal would facilitate a more efficient, transparent and effective documentation of the permitting process. While there is some concern with respect to potential impacts to state permitting authority resources we believe that the increased transparency will result in a more efficient process.

Commenter Name: Eric Thompson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0470-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

This will not cost the American public one cent if what one can expect the coal industry to do in order to save money actually has occured. The fines will pay for the cost of the enforcement and, probably, much more. And we get clean water. What could possibly be the downside?

Commenter Name: Wade Strickland Commenter Affiliation: State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0474-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

7-35 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Section III; Subparts C, 3; Pages 31360-31364 - Fact Sheet Requirements

This part of the proposed rule contains information on EPA's proposal on Fact Sheet Requirements. It is unclear what statutory authority EPA is using to base these regulatory revisions. In addition, many of the proposed fact sheet requirements seem burdensome (see calculation discussion below for an example) and/ or duplicative of information already contained elsewhere in the administrative record for the permit. Although in teleconference with States and the Association of Clean Water Administrators, or ACWA, EPA claims that the information is readily available and therefore the proposed additions to the fact sheet are not burdensome, the statement ignores how much the cost compilation, consolidation and development of the proposed added elements to the fact sheet will actually be in terms of time and cost to the permitting agency to incorporate this information into a format and standard required of a fact sheet format. In some cases, the additional work to meet the intent of the proposed rule may be substantial and the true cost to the permitting agency does not appear to be thoroughly considered. DEC requests that EPA provide the statutory or regulatory basis for each proposed modification to the fact sheet and provide a cost evaluation for each proposed modification.

In addition, clarity should be provided in any final rule as to what EPA expects in terms of calculations for water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBEL). Currently, DEC provides the calculations for one parameter from the RPA all the way through to the final WQBEL determination. Post that, DEC provides a table in the fact sheet with all of the necessary data inputs from all other parameters considered such that an interested entity could replicate all other RP A and WQBELs completed as part of the permit issuance/reissuance should they be so inclined. Listing several pages of calculations would likely serve the opposite effect of encouraging public participation as many stakeholders would lose interest in the process due to the daunting mathematical presentation of every parameter's calculations being listed in full. If EPA moves forward with this conceptual approach, DEC strongly recommends EPA allow for the approach DEC currently uses to provide for the information in a format that is accessible to all interested stakeholders. The proposed rule change regarding Fact Sheet Requirements appears to be unnecessary, duplicative of work already contained in the administrative record, and potentially burdensome and costly to the permitting agencies and should not be proposed.

Commenter Name: Christopher L. Risetto Commenter Affiliation: Center for Regulatory Reasonableness (CRR) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0021-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment Excerpt: d. Burden: EPA asserts in the preamble that the proposed revision would not require the collection of new data and will not impose a new burden. Of course it does. If there are no background data, under the proposed regulation there are essentially three choices: (1) State or permittee collects background data; (2) the State develops flow-based permit limits; or (3) the

7-36 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments permittee meets end-of-pipe limits which would be more restrictive and expensive than permit limits based upon a mixing zone. In accordance with applicable federal law, EPA would need to identify what the associated costs are in order to proceed with its proposed approach.

Commenter Name: Bryce West Commenter Affiliation: Peabody Energy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0028-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment Excerpt:

The proposed process will only add to the permitting burden of the state and will result in ongoing changes to staff priorities, slowing the pennitting process even more.

Commenter Name: Bryce West Commenter Affiliation: Peabody Energy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0028-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

We support protective environmental regulation but there must be a limit to massive paperwork requirements that add little to environmental protection.

Response:

A. General

Many comments received disagreed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) view that the proposed revisions would generally not result in new or increased impacts or information collection by authorized states or the regulated community. As explained in the Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda and the preamble to the final rule, the EPA is taking action on the revisions proposed on May 18, 2016 in two separate but related final actions. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable.

7-37 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The EPA prepared an information collection request identifying the types of activities regulated and calculating the burden and associated costs of the revisions to be included in this first final rule and the corresponding updated NPDES permit application forms. The EPA estimates that the revisions will result in a burden reduction of 17,912 hours (per year) and a savings of $2,389,889 (per year) to the public, including a savings of $1,366,847 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.[1] See the preamble to the final rule as well as the information collection request for this final rule that was submitted to the OMB for this rule in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA- HQ-OW-2018-0629. Note, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Regarding the comment referencing other EPA-rulemakings, because the comment does not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates proposed rulemaking (81 FR 31343, May 18, 2016), it is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment on this rulemaking, and therefore, does not require a response.

Regarding the comments that describe current state programs and practices, these comments do not provide any information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule. As such, these comment excerpts are not considered to be substantive or significant comments, and therefore, do not require a response.

Regarding the comment noting that states will need time to update their statutes, regulations, and programs to be consistent with the revisions included in a final rule, the EPA agrees. Existing authorized states, territories, and tribes have up to one year to revise, as necessary, their NPDES programs to adopt the requirements of this rule, unless an authorized state must amend or enact a statute in order to make the required revisions in which case such revision shall take place within two years, as provided at 40 CFR 123.62. All new programs (programs authorized after promulgation of this rule) must comply immediately. See also the “Compliance Dates” section of the preamble to the final rule and the EPA’s response to comment code 9.

A comment from one state program claimed a burden of approximately 174 hours associated with their state making conforming changes to their application forms but did not provide a basis for that burden estimate. The application requirement changes made final by this rule are also less substantive than the full suite of programmatic changes in the proposed rule. In any case, authorized states are not required to use their own forms but may do so, so long as their state application forms collect at a minimum the same information required by the EPA forms. The EPA will help any states that request assistance by providing the revised forms in word processing format to support state efforts in making conforming changes to their application forms and can provide review and comment on revised materials provided by authorized states.

B. Other

7-38 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The EPA disagrees with the requests to withdraw the proposed rule or not to proceed with finalizing the proposed revisions. See the preamble to the final rule as well as the EPA’s response to code 1.b.

One comment stated that EPA should not revise 40 CFR 122.21(g)7)(ix) regarding data requirements for applications and suggested this revision would add additional cost burden to regulated entities. See the preamble to the final rule as well as the EPA’s response to code 2.c.v.

Regarding the comment about the revisions to reporting numbers of SIUs and NSCIUs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i)), see the preamble to the final rule as well as the EPA’s response to code 2.c.vii.

Regarding the comment about the revisions to public notice requirements (40 CFR 124.10(c)), see the final rule and preamble as well as the EPA’s response to codes 4.b, 4.b.i, 4.b.ii, and 4.b.iii.

Regarding the comment about Form 2F, see the EPA’s response to code 8.g.

C. The EPA Is Not Taking Final Action on These Proposed Revisions at This Time

The EPA is not finalizing the proposed changes to 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) due to the very recent (Dec. 4, 2018) enactment of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which exempts discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel from NPDES permitting requirements consistent with the existing regulatory language at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a). If the EPA determines as it implements the new Act that changes to the definition are warranted, it will make any such changes in a separate regulatory action.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics (or any potential associated burden) do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7-39 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

[1] In addition, the EPA is estimated to save 170 hours and $60,282, which includes a savings of $52,826 in annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

7-40 7. Overall Burden

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8. Permit Application Comments Unrelated to Changes in Proposed Rule (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146)

8-1 8. Permit Application Comments Unrelated to Changes in Proposed Rule (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

Commenter Name: Joe Giudice Commenter Affiliation: City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental Programs Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0095-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

Glossary The COP requests clarification on the term "calendar day" as it is defined in DAILY DISCHARGE.

"Calendar Week" is not defined in the AVERAGE WEEKLY DISCHARGE LIMITATION definition.

It should be noted that all through the application forms the definition for WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES does not match the 40 CFR 230.3 definition which was updated in 2015. Specifically, parts (C) and (G) from the form's definition are not included in the 40 CFR 230.3 definition. Currently, the updated rule and definition is in a nationwide injunction. Should this injunction be resolved and the definition of Waters of the Unites States be updated then this rule and all applicable forms should be updated to match the correct definition.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s proposed updates to NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2C, in many instances, are confusing, unnecessary and burdensome. EPA should revise the forms in a manner that provide states with greater discretion and flexibility in the NPDES permit application process.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 48

Comment Excerpt:

8-2 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comments On EPA’s Proposed Revisions To NPDES Application Forms 1 And 2C

EPA also proposed updates to NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2C. Generally, Southern Company believes that EPA should provide states with substantial discretion in how they administer the NPDES application process. The following sections provide Southern Company’s specific comments and input regarding many of these changes.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 51

Comment Excerpt:

General Instructions And Section 1.2.3 Inconsistency

EPA states in the General Instructions on page 1-1 that applicants with new or existing facilities whose discharges are “composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity . . . must also complete Form 2F.”

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 56

Comment Excerpt:

The General Instructions further require applicants with discharges composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater to complete Forms 2F, 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 63

Comment Excerpt:

Section 11.1—Checklist

8-3 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

While the checklist provided in Section 11.1 may be helpful to applicants, Southern Company believes the checklist would be better suited as a guidance document rather than part of Application Form 1.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment Excerpt:

In post-proposal discussions, EPA stated that its intent is that when SIC codes are used in EPA regulations, the SIC codes control. UWAG concurs with this position. To ensure that EPA’s intent is reflected in any final rule, and to eliminate any possibility of confusion or conflict, UWAG urges EPA to clarify in the regulation itself and the preamble that the provision requiring NAICS codes is for the sole purpose of EPA data standards and NAICS codes shall not be used in any way to make other regulatory determinations or establish any legal obligations for permittees. UWAG likewise urges EPA to include in the instructions of revised Form 1 similar clarifying language.

III. Additional Comments on NPDES Application Forms

In the glossary of proposed Form 1 (pages 1-9 – 1-16), EPA made a significant number of additions, revisions, and deletions. It appears that most of the deletions were to remove terms associated with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting programs. In so doing, EPA also deleted terms that are associated with the CWA NPDES permitting program, including “outfall,” and “surface impoundment or impoundment.” The terms “outfall,” and “surface impoundment or impoundment” are used in the instructions, the glossary, and the forms. These existing definitions are helpful to understand the requirements of the permit application forms. For example, in Form 2C (page 2C-7), in the sampling discussion, the instructions explain that “a minimum of one (1) grab sample may be taken for effluents from holding ponds or other impoundments with a retention period of greater than 24 hours.” (emphasis added). EPA should retain the definition of “outfall,” and “surface impoundment or impoundment” in the glossary in Form 1.

In revised Form 1 (at pages 1-2) and revised Form 2C (at page 2C-1), EPA states that “[t]he NPDES permitting authority will consider your application complete when it and any supplementary material are received and completed according to the authority’s satisfaction.” While this statement generally is consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(e), UWAG has concerns related to the real-world impact of withholding a completeness determination in light of uncertainties related to the implementation of the CWA § 316(b) requirements, including for

8-4 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments stations with a DIF < 125 MGD. While EPA chose not to develop a specific application, or application supplement, for CWA § 316(b) requirements, UWAG requests that EPA consider providing clarification regarding what impact potential delays in getting permitting authorities supplemental information may have on a completeness determination, while ensuring that a permit is administratively continued and the permit shield thereunder remains intact. For example, EPA could allow for a timely completeness determination notwithstanding that there may be outstanding information to submit related to a CWA 316(b) issue.

In the revised Form 1 instructions (at page 1-1) and the form in Section 1.2.3 (at page 1), EPA requires discharges from facilities that are composed of industrial stormwater and non- stormwater (i.e., wastewater) to complete Form 2F (for the industrial stormwater) and Form 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate (for the non-stormwater). This requirement is unnecessary, duplicative, and creates an unnecessary burden on permit applicants. All of the necessary information that the permitting authority will need to permit a facility that discharges both stormwater and non-stormwater can be obtained through Forms 2C, 2D, and 2E. Form 2F, and the associated requirements in Form 1, should be eliminated since Form 2F requires no additional information that can’t be obtained through the other forms. EPA should be looking to streamline and build efficiency into the permitting process. It makes no practical sense to make a facility review and submit three different applications forms in order to submit a complete NPDES permit application.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment Excerpt:

I. EPA Should Clarify Its Variance Notification Requirement

EPA proposes to require that applicants indicate whether they are requesting any of the variances available under 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(m). Id. at 31,352. UWAG generally does not oppose a requirement that permit applicants inform regulators up front if they will be seeking a variance. As EPA knows, however, for some variances, many permit applicants do not know if they will need a variance until well into the permitting process. For other variances, EPA regulations are clear that they must be sought up front.

In post-proposal discussions with UWAG regarding this proposed requirement, EPA stated that its intent was for informational purposes only to assist the permitting authority and was not meant to prevent a variance request if the question was not answered in the affirmative in the application or to prevent an applicant from obtaining a variance.

Consistent with EPA’s comments, EPA should clarify its proposed regulatory language, as well as the instructions in Form 1, that this requirement is for the regulator’s informational purposes

8-5 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments and, regardless of how the question is answered, it will have no impact on whether a variance will be available.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule included specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. The proposed rule made clear that, for this rulemaking, the EPA was seeking comment only on those specific proposed targeted changes to the application requirements in the May 18, 2016 proposed rule (see 81 FR 31352). Additionally, the proposed rule indicated that the EPA had established a separate docket (EPA- HQ-OW-2016-0146) to receive comments on potential future changes to the application forms and information requests. Specifically, the EPA requested comment on whether and how a separate future action should address the utility and clarity of the information requests and on how to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology (see 81 FR 31367).

The EPA acknowledges the comments received on the permit application forms in both dockets and reviewed the comments to determine whether any pertained to the specific elements included in the proposed rule. In addition to finalizing the proposal to update the NPDES application forms to be consistent with the requirements included in this first final rule, as proposed, the accompanying instructions for each form have been reformatted and enhanced for improved readability and clarity. As a result, the updated application forms have revised data fields refining the content and improving consistency among the forms, improving consistency with the current data standards for the Agency, and improving the clarity and usability of the forms. The EPA expects the revised application forms to be easier to use and understand and will improve the quality of information being collected.

In the Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda, the EPA explained that the Agency would be finalizing the proposed rule in two separate but related actions. This first final rule addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016 and modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA’s contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable. See also the final rule and preamble to the final rule.

8-6 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

B. Comments Related to the Updated Application Forms

One comment noted that the definition of “Waters of the United States” used in the NPDES application forms did not match the 2015 updated definition. The EPA acknowledges the separate, ongoing rulemaking related to the definition of this term. While this comment does not pertain specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule or this first final rule, the definition of this term has been updated in the Glossary section of Forms 1, 2A, and 2S. The NPDES application form glossary entry now references the NPDES regulatory definitions section reads: “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES as defined at § 122.2.”

One commenter noted a potential inconsistency in the instructions to Form 1 and Item 1.2.5 on Form 1, related to what forms an applicant must complete if a discharge is “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” The commenter suggested that EPA add a new checkbox for additional clarity. The EPA disagrees that a new checkbox needs to be added to Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to note that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater”

8-7 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments must complete Forms 1 and 2F, as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate. Although it is true that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate, the existing checkboxes in Form 1 adequately capture which other forms these applicants would be required to complete. Thus, the revised Form 1, Item 1.2.5 continues to include one “Yes” option for applicants to select if the facility is “a new or existing facility whose discharge is composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity or whose discharge is composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” If the applicant selects “Yes” to this item, they are directed to complete Form 1 and Form 2F unless exempted by 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) or (b)(15). Form 2F’s instructions, in the Notes inset on page 2F-1, provide further instructions regarding which additional forms applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete. Given this additional clarity provided in Form 2F, it is reasonable for Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to include the one “Yes” option for applicants.

C. Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking

One comment requested clarification of the term “calendar day” (in the definition of Daily Discharge), and notes that the term “Calendar Week” is not defined in the Average Weekly Discharge Limitation definition. This comment does not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule or this final rule, and therefore, is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

One comment requested that EPA revise the forms to provide states with greater discretion and flexibility in the NPDES permit application process. Another comment suggested that EPA provide states with substantial discretion in how they administer the NPDES application process. These comments go beyond the specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21 contemplated in the proposed rule, and thus, are outside the scope of this rulemaking. For informational purposes, the existing regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(a)(2)(iv) provide flexibility to state programs to develop their own application forms provided that state forms require at a minimum the same information listed in the appropriate paragraphs of 40 CFR 122.21.

One comment expressed concern related to the form instructions with respect to when the permitting authority will consider and determine a permit application is complete, especially in light of real-world impacts when an applicant has uncertain data or outstanding information at the time of application. The EPA confirmed that the Completeness language included in the Form 1 instructions is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(e). The EPA notes that neither the proposed nor final rule contemplated changing the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(e). Thus, this comment goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

D. Other

Regarding the proposed revision related to reporting SIC and NAICS codes, see the EPA’s response to code 2.c.ii, the final rule and preamble, and the revised NPDES application forms.

8-8 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Regarding the proposed revision related to request for variance indication, see the EPA’s response to code 2.c.ix, the final rule and preamble, and the revised NPDES application forms and instructions.

Regarding the comments related to burden, see the EPA’s response to code 7 as well as the information collection request for this final rule. The information collection request for this final rule can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629.

Regarding the comment related to Form 2C, see also the EPA’s response to code 8.d as well as the revised NPDES application forms.

One comment suggested that although the checklist added to Form 1, Section 11.1 may be helpful to applicants, it was more appropriate as guidance rather than on the form itself. The EPA disagrees. As it is imperative that a permitting authority receive complete application forms, it makes sense to include the checklist in the form itself to ensure that each section of the form has been completed and that appropriate attachments are included in the submission.

One comment suggested retaining the definitions of the following terms in the NPDES application form glossary, as they are helpful for understanding the requirements of the permit application forms: “outfall” and “surface impoundment or impoundment.” Those terms are not currently defined in the NPDES regulations in 40 CFR Part 122, thus, the terms were removed from the Glossary section of the NPDES application forms. The EPA decided to only include terms and definitions that are defined in the NPDES regulations because, generally, the glossary is meant to provide singular clarity to the meaning of those terms and an applicant can be assured that the definition in the glossary is tied to the federal regulations. Retaining definitions in the glossary of terms not defined in the regulations might confuse applicants. For example, an applicant might think the term for “outfall” is also defined in the regulations.

8-9 8.a - Permit Application Comments - Form 1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.b - Permit Application Comments - Form 2A

Commenter Name: Joe Giudice Commenter Affiliation: City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental Programs Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0095-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment Excerpt:

Section 1: Section 1.6: The COP recommends including a space for Aquifer Protection Permits, Stormwater Permits, and Reuse / Reclaimed Water Permits. Section 1.7: Provide a box marked "other" under ownership status of the collection system. Section 1.24: Spaces for three contractors is not aaequate to fully report the information requested in this section Provide a box after the instructions indicating that additional pages are attached. Section 2: Section 2.3: Recommend including a check box for Not Applicable or "N/A." Section 2.4: Recommend including a check box for Not Applicable or "N/A." Section 3: Section 3.17: If the applicant answers "No" to this statement, is there a follow up action required?

Section 3.21: The space provided for reporting the requested information is inadequate. Recommend including a check box after the instructions indicating that additional pages are attached. Table A: Include E.coli as an option for monitoring Fecal Coliform. • Recommend changing "design flow" to "flow rate." • Include a footnote or add a notation for the ML or MDL column indicating if the highest result for the data set should be included. Table B: • Recommend adding "total" to kjeldahl nitrogen. • Recommend adding "total" after Phosphorous. • Include a footnote or add a notation for the ML or MDL column indicating if the highest result for the data set should be included. Table C: • Include a footnote or add a notation for the ML or MDL column indicating if the highest result for the data set should be included.

8-10 8.b - Permit Application Comments - Form 2A

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Jon M. Stomp, III, P.E. Commenter Affiliation: Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0158-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

Revisions to NPOES Application Form 2A and Form 2S. EPA is proposing changes to the standard EPA forms for the NPDES program. The Water Authority suggests that EPA include a reference to 40 CFR 122.21 (j)(4)(iv) so that permittees are aware of the requirement to monitor for parameters listed in applicable water quality standards.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule included specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. The proposed rule made clear that, for this rulemaking, the EPA was seeking comment only on those specific proposed targeted changes to the application requirements in the May 18, 2016 proposed rule (see 81 FR 31352). Additionally, the proposed rule indicated that the EPA had established a separate docket (EPA- HQ-OW-2016-0146) to receive comments on potential future changes to the application forms and information requests. Specifically, the EPA requested comment on whether and how a separate future action should address the utility and clarity of the information requests and on how to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology (see 81 FR 31367).

The EPA acknowledges the comments received on the permit application forms in both dockets and reviewed the comments to determine whether any pertained to the specific elements included in the proposed rule. In addition to finalizing the proposal to update the NPDES application forms to be consistent with the requirements included in this first final rule, the accompanying instructions for each form have been reformatted and enhanced for improved readability and clarity. As a result, the updated application forms have revised data fields refining the content and improving consistency among the forms, improving consistency with the current data standards for the Agency, and improving the clarity and usability of the forms. The EPA expects the revised application forms to be easier to use and understand and will improve the quality of information being collected.

The Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda explained that the EPA would be finalizing the proposed rule in two separate but related actions. This first final rule addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016 and modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of

8-11 8.b - Permit Application Comments - Form 2A

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA’s contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents,;and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable. See also the final rule and preamble to the final rule.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

B. Other

One comment suggested that the EPA include spaces for additional types of existing environmental permits (e.g., Aquifer Protection Permits, Stormwater Permits, and Reuse/Reclaimed Water Permits) in Form 2A, Item 1.6. The EPA disagrees with adding individual spaces for these types of permits because they may only apply to a handful of

8-12 8.b - Permit Application Comments - Form 2A

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments applicants, and, in terms of space and formatting, the forms cannot accommodate listing all types of existing environmental permits an applicant may possess. However, the EPA notes that indication of such permits can be specified in the field labeled “Other” in Form 2A, Item 1.6.

One comment suggested that EPA include a box for “other” under ownership status of the collection system in Form 2A, Item 1.7. The EPA disagrees. The comment did not explain what additional ownership status warrants the need for the “other” box. The revised Form 2A continues to include a box for “own” and “maintain” in this section of the form. The Form 2A instructions make clear that privately owned collection systems discharging industrial waste to the treatment works should not be reported in Form 2A, Item 1.7, and instead, must be reported in Table F.

One comment suggested that the space allotted for three contractors in Form 2A, Item 1.24 is not adequate, and the EPA should include a box for applicants to use to indicate that additional pages are attached. The EPA disagrees that a box needs to be added to this item, and the revised Form 2A continues to include spaces for the information of three contractors on the form itself (now Items 1.24 and 1.25). The EPA notes that Form 2A Checklist in Item 6.1, Column 2 includes a check box for applicants to indicate if the application is submitted “with additional attachments.” It is the EPA’s view that the checkbox in Form 2A, Item 6.1 meets the intent of the comment and will sufficiently notify the permitting authority when the applicant has included supplemental information, such as additional contractor information, in attachments to their application.

One comment recommended that the EPA include “NA” boxes in Form 2A, Items 2.3 and 2.4 for the applicant to indicate that the question requesting the applicant to attach a Topographic Map and Flow Diagram is not applicable. The EPA disagrees. 40 CFR 122.21(j)(2)(ii) and (iii) require all applicants with a design flow greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to provide a topographic map and flow diagram as specified in the regulations. Form 2A, Item 2.1 seeks the design flow information from the applicant to determine what additional information is required to be provided. The Instructions to Form 2A, Item 2.1 make clear that if the applicant indicates that the treatment works does not have a design flow greater than or equal to 0.1 mgd, the applicant can skip to Section 3 of the form (and skip Items 2.2-2.7, including the questions related to a topographic map and flow diagram).

One comment asked whether a follow-up action is required where an applicant provides a response of “No” to Form 2A, Item 3.17, “Have you completed monitoring for all applicable Table C pollutants and attached the results to this application package?” Form 2A, Item 3.16 asks applicants to indicate whether one or more conditions apply to a POTW in order to determine what monitoring is required by the regulations. The instructions to Form 2A, Item 3.16 make clear that if the applicant indicates that none of the conditions apply to a POTW, they should answer “No” and skip to Section 4 of Form 2A without a follow-up action for the application form.

One comment suggested the EPA include a reference to 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(iv) to ensure permittees are aware of the requirement to monitor for parameters listed in applicable water quality standards. The EPA acknowledges the requirement in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(iv) which states: “The following applicants must sample and analyze for the pollutants listed in appendix J,

8-13 8.b - Permit Application Comments - Form 2A

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Table 2 of this part, and for any other pollutants for which the State or EPA have established water quality standards applicable to the receiving waters: (A) All POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day; (B) All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required to develop a pretreatment program; (C) Other POTWs, as required by the Director.” The EPA notes that the revised Form 2A, Section 3 includes the title “Section 3. Information on Effluent Discharges (40 CFR 122.21(j)(3) to (5)),” which includes the reference to 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4). The EPA also notes that Form 2A, Item 3.16 asks applicants to indicate whether the conditions outlined in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(iv)(A)— (C) applies to a POTW to determine what monitoring is required by the regulations.

One comment suggested that the space allotted for applicants to indicate the dates testing data were submitted to the permitting authority and a summary of the results in Form 2A, Item 3.21 is inadequate. The comment recommended the EPA include a box for applicants to use to indicate that additional pages are attached. The EPA disagrees that a box needs to be added to this item. The EPA notes that Form 2A Checklist in Item 6.1, Column 2 includes a check box for applicants to indicate if the application is submitted “with additional attachments.” It is the EPA’s view that the checkbox in Form 2A, Item 6.1 meets the intent of the comment and will sufficiently notify the permitting authority when the applicant has included supplemental information, such as additional information about dates testing data were submitted and a summary of the results, in attachments to their application.

One comment suggested the EPA include E. coli as an option for monitoring Fecal Coliform in Form 2A, Table A. The EPA disagrees and is retaining the names of the parameters in Form 2A, Table A to be consistent with 40 CFR 122, Appendix J. Thus, Form 2A, Table A continues to list Fecal Coliform.

One comment suggested that EPA change “design flow” to “flow rate.” The EPA acknowledges that the NPDES regulations use “design flow,” “flow rate,” and “design flow rate.” However, this comment goes beyond the specific, targeted changes contemplated in the proposed rule and does not require a response as part of this rulemaking. The revised Form 2A retains use of the term “design flow.”

One comment suggested that EPA include a footnote or notation in Form 2A, Tables A, B, and C to indicate if the highest result for the data set should be included in the table. This comment does not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule or this final rule. As such, this comment excerpt is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

One comment suggested that the EPA add “total” to Kjeldahl nitrogen and after Phosphorous in Form 2A, Table B. The EPA disagrees and is retaining the names of the parameters in Form 2A, Table B to be consistent with the parameter listing in 40 CFR 122, Appendix J. Thus, Form 2A, Table B continues to list Kjeldahl nitrogen and phosphorous.

8-14 8.b - Permit Application Comments - Form 2A

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.c - Permit Application Comments - Form 2B The EPA did not receive any comments related to this topic.

8-15 8.c - Permit Application Comments - Form 2B

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s proposed updates to NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2C, in many instances, are confusing, unnecessary and burdensome. EPA should revise the forms in a manner that provide states with greater discretion and flexibility in the NPDES permit application process.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 49

Comment Excerpt:

Comments On EPA’s Proposed Revisions To NPDES Application Forms 1 And 2C

EPA also proposed updates to NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2C. Generally, Southern Company believes that EPA should provide states with substantial discretion in how they administer the NPDES application process. The following sections provide Southern Company’s specific comments and input regarding many of these changes.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 52

Comment Excerpt:

The General Instructions further require applicants with discharges composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater to complete Forms 2F, 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company

8-16 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 59

Comment Excerpt:

Form 2C is adequate to provide the permitting authority with the information it needs.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 65

Comment Excerpt:

Section 1.1—Outfall Latitude And Longitude

EPA’s proposed Section 1.1 would revise the specificity level EPA requires applicants to use when identifying outfall locations. “To ensure precision and improve consistency, EPA proposes revising the application forms and corresponding regulations in 40 C.F.R. § 122.21 to ask for latitude and longitude to the nearest second for every facility and permitted feature, as well as the method of collection for this information.”59 Such precision is not justified seeing that many factors—ranging from natural hydrological fluctuations to regulatory changes—can impact an outfall’s exact location. EPA’s proposed requirement would also create a heavy burden for applicants. It is inconsistent with on-the-ground practice and unreasonable for EPA to demand applicants to make such precise determinations in the time EPA estimates it will take to complete Application Form 2C. Additionally, the precision EPA requests would require permittees to submit minor modifications to their permits whenever slight adjustments to outfall locations may occur.

Accordingly, Southern Company requests EPA to revise Section 1.1 to provide applicants with greater flexibility for determining outfall locations. Doing so would give applicants the ability to more accurately describe outfall locations by allowing them to account for factors causing location variability. This flexibility would lead to more realistic outfall location determinations that would not commit applicants to specific latitudinal and longitudinal locations that, as discussed above, may unavoidably change. It would also provide regulators with the ability to make in-the-field decisions related to outfall locations.

59 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,350.

8-17 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 66

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s proposed Section 5.2 revisions would require applicants to provide the ELG category, subcategory, and regulatory citation for each applicable ELG. Southern Company believes this request is too specific and shoulders applicants with an unnecessary and time consuming burden. Southern Company believes it is more than adequate for EPA to require applicants to name their industry and provide details of the nature and type of waste or discharge. Doing so gives regulators the information they need without requiring applicants to expend the time and resources required to provide unnecessarily specific regulatory information that EPA can more easily find itself.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 67

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s proposed Section 5.2 revisions would require applicants to provide the ELG category, subcategory, and regulatory citation for each applicable ELG. Southern Company believes this request is too specific and shoulders applicants with an unnecessary and time consuming burden. Southern Company believes it is more than adequate for EPA to require applicants to name their industry and provide details of the nature and type of waste or discharge. Doing so gives regulators the information they need without requiring applicants to expend the time and resources required to provide unnecessarily specific regulatory information that EPA can more easily find itself.

3. Section 7—Effluent And Intake Characteristics

EPA’s proposed revisions add Section 7, which would require applicants to provide answers to seventeen additional questions related to requested waivers and pollutants that applicants believe are present or absent. It appears that these questions are intended to serve as a checklist for applicants to ensure they have provided complete and accurate information. Southern Company believes this checklist serves a duplicative purpose. While Section 7 may be helpful for applicants to double-check the information they provide, these questions would be better suited as a guidance document rather than part of Form 2C.

Southern Company requests EPA to identify what level of certainty is needed for a permittee to indicate it believes a pollutant is present or absent. Requiring applicants to check “Believed

8-18 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Present” or “Believed Absent” leads to a result where applicants devote time and resources to test for pollutants wholly unrelated to their operations. Additionally, permittees are more likely to check “Believed Present” out of an abundance of caution simply to account for the minute possibility of trace amounts of a pollutant being in its discharge, even though the applicant has little or no actual reason for making such an assumption. By forcing permittees to check “Believed Present” without regard to the actual likelihood of a pollutant being in a discharge, an unrealistic picture of the discharge could emerge.

4. Section 11—Additional Information

Proposed Section 11 would require applicants to provide the permitting authority with “additional information reasonably required to assess the discharge of the facility and to determine whether to issue an NPDES permit.”46 This information “may include additional quantitative data and bioassays to assess the relative toxicity of discharges to aquatic life and requirements to determine the cause of the toxicity.”47 Southern Company believes EPA should revise and limit Section 11’s scope. The proposed language currently includes no temporal parameters. The requirement as currently drafted could go well beyond a permittee’s document retention policy. Furthermore, the request seems largely unnecessary since the permitting authority would already have the additional information it requested.

5. Section 12.1—Checklist

While the checklist provided in Section 12.1 may be helpful to applicants, Southern Company believes the checklist would be better suited as a guidance document rather than part of Application Form 2C.

46 Proposed Application Form 2C at 2C-8.

47 Id.

Commenter Name: David L. Smiga Commenter Affiliation: United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0408-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment Excerpt:

8-19 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Issue: EPA's proposal to revise the application Form 2C instructions and include a new paragraph in the regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix) to require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years for non-POTW facilities is not compatible with current record retention regulations.

Comment:

EPA is proposing to require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years for non-POTW facilities. As the proposal states, "the 4.5 year requirement [ ... J was established to ensure the permittee summarizes all the data collected during its existing five-year permit term with consideration that the application would be submitted six months prior to the end of the permit term (i.e., 4.5 years). It is EPA's view that summarizing the data from the previous permit term is equally as important for non-POTW dischargers. Accordingly, EPA proposes to revise the application Form 2C instructions as well as to include a new paragraph 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix) in the regulations to require the submission of effluent data representing the previous 4.5 years. These revisions would not alter the type or quantity of information required from a discharger, and impose no new burden."

U. S. Steel does not oppose providing all data collected during the current permit term; however, a 4.5 year timeframe would be outside of the scope of currently required records retention. In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41G)(2), the permittee is only required to retain records of monitoring information for a period of 3 years from the date of sample, measurement, report or application, except in certain circumstances.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment Excerpt:

G. EPA Should Reject its Proposed Data Age Requirements for Permit Renewals or Provide Clarification Regarding Their Application and Consistency with Record Keeping Requirements.

EPA proposes to change the requirement to provide old effluent data during permit renewal applications from the three (3) previous years to the previous four and one-half (4.5) years of the application.42 Id. at 31,351, 31,369.43 EPA does not provide any explanation for this change except to say that POTWs currently are required to provide 4.5 years of data and that “summarizing the data from the previous permit term is equally as important for non-POTW dischargers.” Id. at 31,351. While this may have been a legitimate justification when EPA first created the 4.5-year requirement for POTWs, many years have gone by since then; EPA provides no explanation that permitting authorities need more data or information to inform their decisions. Further, EPA has long treated POTWs and non-POTWs differently, presumably for

8-20 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments good reason, and a change simply to make requirements consistent seems arbitrary.44 In any event, with the advent of electronic reporting (including the requirements of EPA’s electronic reporting beginning later this year), this requirement seems particularly unnecessary (and duplicative) as EPA and states have (or will soon have) all such data electronically and available immediately. UWAG urges EPA to reconsider its historical data submission requirements in general in light of its recently changed electronic reporting requirements. UWAG sees an opportunity for EPA to eliminate part of the information collection burden created by the NPDES program. 45

Substantively, EPA’s changes to the regulations and Form 2C are confusing. Currently, EPA requires that representative data be provided and that such data be from within the past three years. These requirements, presumably, are so that EPA can obtain fresh data that is most representative of present or future discharges. In the proposal, while EPA keeps the term representative in some parts of Form 2C, it does not do so with respect to the historical data at issue. Instead, EPA appears to favor a larger volume of information over the most accurate information. In addition, the proposed change to provide 4.5 years’ worth of data does not consider that historical data may not be representative of present or future discharges. For example, changes in wastewater treatment technologies in recently promulgated effluent limitations guidelines since the last permit may change the characteristics of the effluent discharges. UWAG urges EPA to reconsider this proposal and instead focus on obtaining data that is most representative of the to-be-permitted discharges.

This requirement also raises issues regarding permittees’ ability to timely submit complete renewal applications. While some of these issues may have existed previously, EPA could use this opportunity to provide clarification. For example, under the proposal, assuming an application due date is January 1, 2017, EPA’s proposal would require data and summaries thereof from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2016. For pollutants for which the applicant monitors monthly, or more frequently, the rule would require data and summaries thereof from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. These requirements create practical and timeliness issues for applicants. In the first – and likely most common – scenario, permittees would be required to review, process, and summarize their most recently received data from (likely) their 2nd quarter sampling in time for a timely application submission. Processing times for samples, as well as internal application reviews to ensure the signatory authority certifies an application that is true, accurate, and complete (which typically take 30 to 60 days), dramatically shorten the applicant’s timing to prepare a complete application. Furthermore, and as EPA is aware, to ensure that they have submitted a complete application by the due date, permittees regularly submit their application months ahead of the due date to ensure that their permit shield is intact and their existing permits are administratively continued. Even assuming a six-month buffer between the last day from which EPA desires sampling data and the application due date, there are substantial timing issues related to permit application submissions. EPA’s proposal to require data from within the last year up to the application due date (for monthly or more frequently sampled pollutants) only exacerbates these issues, as it puts applicants in the position of having to submit an application containing sampling information from the immediately preceding days and months. This information certainly will not be available for some time, putting the applicant in jeopardy of obtaining a timely completeness determination.

8-21 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

In addition to taking a hard look at what past sampling data EPA actually needs, UWAG urges EPA also to consider the impacts of its application requirements on the timing issues related to existing requirements regarding permit application renewal due dates, permit expirations, completeness determinations, and administrative continuances.

The proposed requirement also is inconsistent with EPA’s record keeping requirements, which only require operators keep such information for 3 years. EPA should not create inconsistent record keeping and submission requirements, particularly when EPA has not provided any reason why its current data requirements are not sufficient.

EPA states that these new informational requirements would not result in an increase in effort or information collection. Id. at 31,364-65. On its face, however, EPA’s proposal requires applicants to provide and summarize an additional 1.5 years of sampling data. Doing so takes time, effort, and resources. EPA has not considered, in its ICR or otherwise, the additional informational burden and costs on states and operators related to this proposed change.

UWAG urges EPA to abandon this proposed change, to return Form 2C to its prior language on these points, and to provide any additional clarification it can regarding permit sampling submission requirements so as to create a workable, reasonable process for permittees and regulators that does not hamstring permittees between application information requirements and the regulatory deadlines regarding application submission, completeness determinations, and administrative continuances.

III. Additional Comments on NPDES Application Forms

In revised Form 1 (at pages 1-2) and revised Form 2C (at page 2C-1), EPA states that “[t]he NPDES permitting authority will consider your application complete when it and any supplementary material are received and completed according to the authority’s satisfaction.” While this statement generally is consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(e), UWAG has concerns related to the real-world impact of withholding a completeness determination in light of uncertainties related to the implementation of the CWA § 316(b) requirements, including for stations with a DIF < 125 MGD. While EPA chose not to develop a specific application, or application supplement, for CWA § 316(b) requirements, UWAG requests that EPA consider providing clarification regarding what impact potential delays in getting permitting authorities supplemental information may have on a completeness determination, while ensuring that a permit is administratively continued and the permit shield thereunder remains intact. For example, EPA could allow for a timely completeness determination notwithstanding that there may be outstanding information to submit related to a CWA 316(b) issue.

In the revised Form 1 instructions (at page 1-1) and the form in Section 1.2.3 (at page 1), EPA requires discharges from facilities that are composed of industrial stormwater and non- stormwater (i.e., wastewater) to complete Form 2F (for the industrial stormwater) and Form 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate (for the non-stormwater). This requirement is unnecessary, duplicative, and creates an unnecessary burden on permit applicants. All of the necessary

8-22 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments information that the permitting authority will need to permit a facility that discharges both stormwater and non-stormwater can be obtained through Forms 2C, 2D, and 2E. Form 2F, and the associated requirements in Form 1, should be eliminated since Form 2F requires no additional information that can’t be obtained through the other forms. EPA should be looking to streamline and build efficiency into the permitting process. It makes no practical sense to make a facility review and submit three different applications forms in order to submit a complete NPDES permit application.

In the revised Form 2C instructions (at page 2C-8) and the form in Section 11 (at page 7), EPA adds a new requirement for “Additional Information.” This new requirement would require applicants to provide the permitting authority with “additional information reasonably required to assess the discharge of the facility and to determine whether to issue an NPDES permit.” This information “may include additional quantitative data and bioassays to assess the relative toxicity of discharges to aquatic life and requirements to determine the cause of the toxicity.” This new requirement has the potential to create significant timing issues with respect to a compete permit application. While UWAG recognizes that EPA has the authority to request additional information that is not required by the permit application under 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(g)(13), by placing the new language in the permit application, it forever puts at risk applicants’ ability to meet the 180 day requirement for a complete permit application, depending on what the permit writer my require and when it is requested. Because the regulation provides EPA the authority it needs, UWAG requests this provision be removed from Form 2C to ensure that there is no confusion regarding what are considered a permit application requirements (and what must be submitted to meet those requirements to obtain a timely completeness determination), and what are considered additional non-permit application information requests under Section 122.21(g)(13).

In the revised Form 2C (pages 11-29) there are tables where the permit applicant must identify the presence or absence of certain pollutants. EPA must make it clear in the instructions to Form 2C and/or the preamble to the final rule that if an applicant checks “believed present,” and the permitting authority decides not to include a specific effluent limitation(s) in the NPDES permit for that pollutant, the applicant would not be a violation of the prohibition of CWA Section 301(a) for any discharge of that pollutant because of the CWA’s permit shield at CWA Section 402(k). See Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cnty. Comm’r of Carroll Cnty., Md., 268 F.3d 255, 268-69 (4th Cir. 2001) (“compliance is a broader concept than merely obeying the express restrictions set forth on the face of the NPDES permit; all discharges adequately disclosed to the permitting authority are within the scope of the permit’s protection.”); see also In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605, 1998 WL 284964, at *13 (EPA 1998) (“[T]he discharge of unlisted pollutants is in violation of the CWA unless the applicant makes adequate disclosures to permit authorities during the application process about the source and nature of its discharges.”).

Further, applicants must be accorded the same permit shield defense when—based on all available information at the time of the permit application—it checks “believed absent” for a specific pollutant(s), and the pollutant(s) is subsequently discharged from the applicant’s facility. See Piney Run, 268 F.3d at 269; In re Ketchikan, at *13. At the time of the permit application, the scope of the pollutants discharged would be adequately disclosed and the permit shield would be applicable. If the facility discharges pollutants that were thought to be believed absent, the

8-23 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments applicant may need to submit information and/or request for a permit modification to the permitting authority, but that does not alter the applicability of the permit shield for any CWA liability for the prior discharges of the pollutant(s). Applicants must not be put into a position of guessing what pollutants are in its discharges in order to be protected by the CWA’s permit shield. Neither should applicants be forced to sample their effluent to test for every pollutant on pages 11-29 of Form 2C. If it is EPA’s position that all applicants for NPDES permits must sample their effluent to test for every pollutant on pages 11-29 of Form 2C in order to avail themselves to the permit shield defense, EPA must make its position clear in the final rule.

Finally, the process by which EPA has sought comments on the forms has been disappointing and unhelpful in fostering meaningful public comments. When UWAG first met with EPA to discuss the scope of the proposed Update Rule, EPA indicated it would be open to sharing its proposed changes on the forms with UWAG and to having a frank discussion about, not only EPA’s proposed changes, but also suggestions from UWAG regarding how they could be improved. EPA backed away from that offer and explained that would be willing to engage with UWAG on the forms after it proposed the Update Rule.

When the Update Rule was proposed, EPA simply uploaded the revised forms into a separate docket. It did not provide a redline of its proposed changes and any discussion or explanation about them. While EPA invited comments on the revised forms in the preamble, in a discussion with UWAG about engaging on the forms and discussing UWAG’s suggestion to improve them, EPA informed UWAG that, like the Update Rule, EPA would not be addressing any comments on the forms that did not address the changes EPA was proposing.

The forms are an important reflection of the NPDES permitting rules, and like the proposed changes to those rules, require some explanation to provide the public and stakeholders an ability to understand EPA’s changes and the reasoning behind them. Without this, the chance at meaningful comments is stymied. UWAG urges EPA to provide an explanation of its proposed changes to the forms and, thereafter, provide the public and stakeholders with an additional opportunity to provide comments. In addition, UWAG urges EPA to engage with the public and stakeholders about all suggestions to improve the forms. Stakeholders use the forms on the ground, and have good ideas, for example, about where clarity is needed, and other revisions to improve the permitting process.

Commenter Name: Bryce West Commenter Affiliation: Peabody Energy Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0028-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Application Requirements (Form 2C)

8-24 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Form 2C will now specify that effluent data be submitted that is representative of the previous 4V, year period. Peabody believes EPA should consider further modification that allows the use of representative data in some instances. Collection of a sample to satisfy all of the parameters contained in Form 2C Tables V.A-V.C costs approximately $2,000 per sample. Many of these parameters are not relevant to coal mining operations. Peabody agrees that parameters that are sampled regularly can be submitted for the previous 4V, year period. However, for those parameters that are not regularly sampled and are not expected to be present at a facility, a facility should be allowed to use data older than 4V, years or representative data from other sources, rather than requiring costly and extensive sampling of inappropriate parameters for the facility in question.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule included specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. The proposed rule made clear that, for this rulemaking, the EPA was seeking comment only on those specific proposed targeted changes to the application requirements in the May 18, 2016 proposed rule (see 81 FR 31352). Additionally, the proposed rule indicated that the EPA had established a separate docket (EPA- HQ-OW-2016-0146) to receive comments on potential future changes to the application forms and information requests. Specifically, the EPA requested comment on whether and how a separate future action should address the utility and clarity of the information requests and on how to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology (see 81 FR 31367).

The EPA acknowledges the comments received on the permit application forms in both dockets and reviewed the comments to determine whether any pertained to the specific elements included in the proposed rule. In addition to finalizing the proposal to update the NPDES application forms to be consistent with the requirements included in this first final rule, as proposed, the accompanying instructions for each form have been reformatted and enhanced for improved readability and clarity. As a result, the updated application forms have revised data fields refining the content and improving consistency among the forms, improving consistency with the current data standards for the Agency, and improving the clarity and usability of the forms. The EPA expects the revised application forms to be easier to use and understand and will improve the quality of information being collected

The Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda explained that the EPA would be finalizing the proposed rule in two separate but related actions. This first final rule addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016 and modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger”

8-25 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA’s contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable. See also the final rule and preamble to the final rule.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

B. Comments Related to the Updated Application Forms

One commenter noted a potential inconsistency in the instructions to Form 1 and Form 1, Item 1.2.5 related to what forms an applicant must complete if a discharge is “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” The commenter suggested that the EPA add a new checkbox for additional clarity. The EPA disagrees that a new checkbox needs to be added to Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to note that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate. Although it

8-26 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments is true that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate, the existing checkboxes in Form 1 adequately capture which other forms these applicants would be required to complete. Thus, the revised Form 1, Item 1.2.5 continues to include one “Yes” option for applicants to select if the facility is “a new or existing facility whose discharge is composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity or whose discharge is composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” If the applicant selects “Yes” to this item, they are directed to complete Form 1 and Form 2F unless exempted by 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) or (b)(15). Form 2F’s instructions, in the Notes inset on page 2F-1, provide further instructions regarding which additional forms applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete. Given this additional clarity provided in Form 2F, it is reasonable for Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to include the one “Yes” option for applicants.

C. Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking

One comment requested that EPA revise the forms to provide states with greater discretion and flexibility in the NPDES permit application process. Another comment suggested that EPA provide states with substantial discretion in how they administer the NPDES application process. These comments go beyond the specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21 contemplated in the proposed rule. Because these comments do not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule or this final rule, they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. For informational purposes, the existing regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(a)(2)(iv) provide flexibility to state programs to develop their own application forms provided that state forms require at a minimum the same information listed in the appropriate paragraphs of 40 CFR 122.21.

D. Other

Regarding the comments related to data age for permit renewal, see also the EPA’s response to code 2.c.v, as well as the final language in 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix), and the preamble to the final rule. The “General Instructions for Reporting, Sampling, and Analysis” section in the Form 2C instructions also includes language consistent with the final rule. See “Use of Historical Data” on page 2C-6 of the Form 2C packet.

Regarding the comments related to burden, see the EPA’s response to code 7 as well as the information collection request for this final rule. The information collection request for this final rule can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629.

Regarding the comment related to Form 1, see also the EPA’s response to code 8.a as well as the revised NPDES application forms.

The EPA acknowledges the general comment stating that Form 2C is adequate to provide the permitting authority with the information it needs. Because this comment does not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained

8-27 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments in the EPA’s proposed rule, it is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment, and therefore, does not require a response as part of this rulemaking.

One comment suggested that an applicant should not be required to indicate or provide the effluent limitation guideline category, subcategory, and regulatory citation that applies to their industry. Instead, the comment suggests that the applicant name their industry and provide details of the nature and type of waste or discharge on the application form, and then EPA can identify the applicable effluent limitation guideline category, subcategory, and regulatory citation. The EPA disagrees and notes that the EPA is not the permitting authority for dischargers in the 47 states and one U.S. territory authorized to implement their own NPDES programs. See the “authority” tab at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-state-program-information for details. For applications submitted to these authorized states, the EPA would not receive applications to identify the applicable effluent limitation guideline category, subcategory, and regulatory citation, as the comment suggests. The regulations in 40 CFR 122.21(g)(5) require existing manufacturing, commercial mining, and silvicultural discharger applicants to provide the following information: “(5) Maximum production. If an effluent guideline promulgated under Section 304 of CWA applies to the applicant and is expressed in terms of production (or other measure of operation), a reasonable measure of the applicant's actual production reported in the units used in the applicable effluent guideline. The reported measure must reflect the actual production of the facility as required by § 122.45(b)(2).” It is the EPA’s view that the applicants required to complete Form 2C will be in the best position to determine their effluent limitation guideline category, subcategory, and associated regulatory citation. In addition, it is likely that, as an existing discharger, the applicant will know this information from its previous permit application and current permit. Therefore, Form 2C, Item 5.2 continues to request the applicant to indicate the applicable effluent limitation guideline category, subcategory, and regulatory citation.

One comment suggested that although the checklist added to Form 2C, Section 12 may be helpful to applicants, it was more appropriate as guidance rather than on the form itself. The EPA disagrees. It is imperative that a permitting authority receive complete application forms, and it makes sense to include the checklist in the form itself to ensure that each section of the form has been completed and that appropriate attachments are included in the submission.

One comment questioned the purpose of the items included in Form 2C, Section 7 and suggested that the information related to effluent and intake characteristics would be better suited as guidance in the application form instructions. The EPA disagrees. The items included in Form 2C, Section 7 follow the requirements in 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7). While the proposed and final rule did contemplate revisions related to Data Age for Permit Renewal (40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ix)), the proposed and final rules did not contemplate changing the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7) as a whole. Neither the proposed nor final rule contemplated changing the 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7) requirements to guidance, as suggested by the commenter. Thus, this comment goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

One comment requested clarification on what level of certainty is needed when an applicant responds that a pollutant is “Believed Present” or “Believed Absent.” This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The EPA notes, in any event, the “General instructions for

8-28 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Reporting, Sampling, and Analysis” section in Form 2C (see page 2C-5) provides clarity on this point. It makes clear that an applicant should, “Base your determination that a pollutant is present in or absent from your discharge on your knowledge of your raw materials, maintenance chemicals, intermediate, and final products and byproducts, and any previous analyses known to you of your effluent or similar effluent. For example, if you manufacture pesticides, you should expect those pesticides to be present in contaminated stormwater runoff. If you would expect a pollutant to be present solely because of its presence in your intake water, you must mark “Believed Present,” but you are not required to analyze for that pollutant. Instead, mark an “X” in the long-term average value of the “Intake” column; optionally, you may instead provide intake data.”

Some comments suggested that Form 2C, Section 11 related to “additional information” is broad and unnecessary, and that the EPA should revise the section to limit the scope. The EPA disagrees. The EPA confirmed that the language included in this section is consistent with the scope and requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(g)(13). The EPA notes that neither the proposed nor final rule contemplated changing the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(g)(13). Thus, these comments go beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

One comment expressed concern related to the form instructions that address when the permitting authority will consider and determine that a permit application is complete, especially considering real-world impacts when an applicant has uncertain data or outstanding information at the time of application. The EPA confirmed that the Completeness language included in the Form 1 instructions is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(e). The EPA notes that neither the proposed nor final rule contemplated changing the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(e). Thus, this comment goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

8-29 8.d - Permit Application Comments - Form 2C

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.e - Permit Application Comments - Form 2D

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 53

Comment Excerpt:

The General Instructions further require applicants with discharges composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater to complete Forms 2F, 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment Excerpt:

III. Additional Comments on NPDES Application Forms

In the revised Form 1 instructions (at page 1-1) and the form in Section 1.2.3 (at page 1), EPA requires discharges from facilities that are composed of industrial stormwater and non- stormwater (i.e., wastewater) to complete Form 2F (for the industrial stormwater) and Form 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate (for the non-stormwater). This requirement is unnecessary, duplicative, and creates an unnecessary burden on permit applicants. All of the necessary information that the permitting authority will need to permit a facility that discharges both stormwater and non-stormwater can be obtained through Forms 2C, 2D, and 2E. Form 2F, and the associated requirements in Form 1, should be eliminated since Form 2F requires no additional information that can’t be obtained through the other forms. EPA should be looking to streamline and build efficiency into the permitting process. It makes no practical sense to make a facility review and submit three different applications forms in order to submit a complete NPDES permit application.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule included specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. The proposed rule made clear that, for this rulemaking, EPA was seeking comment only on those specific proposed targeted changes to the application requirements in the May 18, 2016 proposed rule (see 81 FR 31352). Additionally, the proposed rule indicated that EPA had established a separate docket (EPA-HQ- OW-2016-0146) to receive comments on potential future changes to the application forms and information requests. Specifically, EPA requested comment on whether and how a separate

8-30 8.e - Permit Application Comments - Form 2D

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments future action should address the utility and clarity of the information requests and on how to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology (see 81 FR 31367).

The EPA acknowledges the comments received on the permit application forms in both dockets and reviewed the comments to determine whether any pertained to the specific elements included in the proposed rule. In addition to finalizing the proposal to update the NPDES application forms to be consistent with the requirements included in this first final rule, the accompanying instructions for each form have been reformatted and enhanced for improved readability and clarity. As a result, the updated application forms have revised data fields refining the content and improving consistency among the forms, improving consistency with the current data standards for the Agency, and improving the clarity and usability of the forms. The EPA expects the revised application forms to be easier to use and understand and that the revisions will improve the quality of information being collected.

The Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda explained that the EPA would be finalizing the proposed rule in two separate but related actions. This first final rule addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016 and modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA’s contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable. See also the final rule and preamble to the final rule.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

8-31 8.e - Permit Application Comments - Form 2D

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

B. Comments Related to the Updated Application Forms

One commenter noted a potential inconsistency in the instructions to Form 1 and Form 1, Item 1.2.5 related to what forms an applicant must complete if a discharge is “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” The commenter suggested that the EPA add a new checkbox for additional clarity. The EPA disagrees that a new checkbox needs to be added to Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to note that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate. Although it is true that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate, the existing checkboxes in Form 1 adequately capture which other forms these applicants would be required to complete. Thus, the revised Form 1, Item 1.2.5 continues to include one “Yes” option for applicants to select if the facility is “a new or existing facility whose discharge is composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity or whose discharge is composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” If the applicant selects “Yes” to this item, they are directed to complete Form 1 and Form 2F unless exempted by 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) or (b)(15). Form 2F’s instructions, in the Notes inset on page 2F-1, provide further instructions regarding which additional forms that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non- stormwater” must complete. Given this additional clarity provided in Form 2F, it is reasonable for Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to include the one “Yes” option for applicants.

C. Other

With regard to the comment related to Form 1, see the EPA’s response to code 8.a as well as the revised NPDES application forms.

8-32 8.e - Permit Application Comments - Form 2D

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.f - Permit Application Comments - Form 2E

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment Excerpt:

The General Instructions further require applicants with discharges composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater to complete Forms 2F, 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment Excerpt:

III. Additional Comments on NPDES Application Forms

In the revised Form 1 instructions (at page 1-1) and the form in Section 1.2.3 (at page 1), EPA requires discharges from facilities that are composed of industrial stormwater and non- stormwater (i.e., wastewater) to complete Form 2F (for the industrial stormwater) and Form 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate (for the non-stormwater). This requirement is unnecessary, duplicative, and creates an unnecessary burden on permit applicants. All of the necessary information that the permitting authority will need to permit a facility that discharges both stormwater and non-stormwater can be obtained through Forms 2C, 2D, and 2E. Form 2F, and the associated requirements in Form 1, should be eliminated since Form 2F requires no additional information that can’t be obtained through the other forms. EPA should be looking to streamline and build efficiency into the permitting process. It makes no practical sense to make a facility review and submit three different applications forms in order to submit a complete NPDES permit application.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule included specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. The proposed rule made clear that, for this rulemaking, EPA was seeking comment only on those specific proposed targeted changes to the application requirements in the May 18, 2016 proposed rule (see 81 FR 31352). Additionally, the proposed rule indicated that EPA had established a separate docket (EPA-HQ- OW-2016-0146) to receive comments on potential future changes to the application forms and information requests. Specifically, EPA requested comment on whether and how a separate

8-33 8.f - Permit Application Comments - Form 2E

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments future action should address the utility and clarity of the information requests and on how to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology (see 81 FR 31367).

The EPA acknowledges the comments received on the permit application forms in both dockets and reviewed the comments to determine whether any pertained to the specific elements included in the proposed rule. In addition to finalizing the proposal to update the NPDES application forms to be consistent with the requirements included in this first final rule, as proposed, the accompanying instructions for each form have been reformatted and enhanced for improved readability and clarity. As a result, the updated application forms have revised data fields refining the content and improving consistency among the forms, improving consistency with the current data standards for the Agency, and improving the clarity and usability of the forms. The EPA expects the revised application forms to be easier to use and understand and will improve the quality of information being collected.

The Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda explained that the EPA would be finalizing the proposed rule in two separate but related actions. This first final rule addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016 and modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA’s contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable. See also the final rule and preamble to the final rule.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

8-34 8.f - Permit Application Comments - Form 2E

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

B. Comments Related to the Updated Application Forms

One commenter noted a potential inconsistency in the instructions to Form 1 and Form 1, Item 1.2.5 related to what forms an applicant must complete if a discharge is “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” The commenter suggested that EPA add a new checkbox for additional clarity. The EPA disagrees that a new checkbox needs to be added to Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to note that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate. Although it is true that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate, the existing checkboxes in Form 1 adequately capture which other forms these applicants would be required to complete. Thus, the revised Form 1, Item 1.2.5 continues to include one “Yes” option for applicants to select if the facility is “a new or existing facility whose discharge is composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity or whose discharge is composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” If the applicant selects “Yes” to this item, they are directed to complete Form 1 and Form 2F unless exempted by 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) or (b)(15). Form 2F’s instructions, in the Notes inset on page 2F-1, provide further instructions regarding which additional forms that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non- stormwater” must complete. Given this additional clarity provided in Form 2F, it is reasonable for Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to include the one “Yes” option for applicants.

C. Other

Regarding the comment related to Form 1, see the EPA’s response to code 8.a as well as the revised NPDES application forms.

8-35 8.f - Permit Application Comments - Form 2E

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.g - Permit Application Comments - Form 2F

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50

Comment Excerpt:

General Instructions And Section 1.2.3 Inconsistency

EPA states in the General Instructions on page 1-1 that applicants with new or existing facilities whose discharges are “composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity . . . must also complete Form 2F.”

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 55

Comment Excerpt:

The General Instructions further require applicants with discharges composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater to complete Forms 2F, 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate.

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 57

Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s proposed Section 1.2.3 requires applicants with new or existing facilities whose discharges are composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity, or whose discharges are composed of stormwater and non-stormwater to complete Form 2F, unless exempted. The requirement to complete Form 2F when discharges are composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater is unnecessary, duplicative, and creates an unnecessary burden on the permit applicants.

8-36 8.g - Permit Application Comments - Form 2F

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Commenter Name: Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 60

Comment Excerpt:

Submitting Form 2F should not be required since doing so provides the permitting authority with no additional information.

Commenter Name: David J. DePippo Commenter Affiliation: Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment Excerpt:

III. Additional Comments on NPDES Application Forms

In the revised Form 1 instructions (at page 1-1) and the form in Section 1.2.3 (at page 1), EPA requires discharges from facilities that are composed of industrial stormwater and non- stormwater (i.e., wastewater) to complete Form 2F (for the industrial stormwater) and Form 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate (for the non-stormwater). This requirement is unnecessary, duplicative, and creates an unnecessary burden on permit applicants. All of the necessary information that the permitting authority will need to permit a facility that discharges both stormwater and non-stormwater can be obtained through Forms 2C, 2D, and 2E. Form 2F, and the associated requirements in Form 1, should be eliminated since Form 2F requires no additional information that can’t be obtained through the other forms. EPA should be looking to streamline and build efficiency into the permitting process. It makes no practical sense to make a facility review and submit three different applications forms in order to submit a complete NPDES permit application.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule included specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. The proposed rule made clear that, for this rulemaking, EPA was seeking comment only on those specific proposed targeted changes to the application requirements in the May 18, 2016 proposed rule (see 81 FR 31352). Additionally, the proposed rule indicated that EPA had established a separate docket (EPA-HQ- OW-2016-0146) to receive comments on potential future changes to the application forms and information requests. Specifically, EPA requested comment on whether and how a separate future action should address the utility and clarity of the information requests and on how to

8-37 8.g - Permit Application Comments - Form 2F

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology (see 81 FR 31367).

The EPA acknowledges the comments received on the permit application forms in both dockets and reviewed the comments to determine whether any pertained to the specific elements included in the proposed rule. In addition to finalizing the proposal to update the NPDES application forms to be consistent with the requirements included in this first final rule, as proposed, the accompanying instructions for each form have been reformatted and enhanced for improved readability and clarity. As a result, the updated application forms have revised data fields refining the content and improving consistency among the forms, improving consistency with the current data standards for the Agency, and improving the clarity and usability of the forms. The EPA expects the revised application forms to be easier to use and understand and that the revisions will improve the quality of information being collected.

The Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda explained that the EPA would be finalizing the proposed rule in two separate but related actions. This first final rule addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016 and modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment. Specifically, this first action includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA’s contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable. See also the final rule and preamble to the final rule.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

8-38 8.g - Permit Application Comments - Form 2F

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

B. Comments Related to the Updated Application Forms

One commenter noted a potential inconsistency in the instructions to Form 1 and Form 1, Item 1.2.5 related to what forms an applicant must complete if a discharge is “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” The commenter suggested that EPA add a new checkbox for additional clarity. The EPA disagrees that a new checkbox needs to be added to Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to note that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate. Although it is true that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater” must complete Forms 1 and 2F as well as Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate, the existing checkboxes in Form 1 adequately capture which other forms these applicants would be required to complete. Thus, the revised Form 1, Item 1.2.5 continues to include one “Yes” option for applicants to select if the facility is “a new or existing facility whose discharge is composed entirely of stormwater associated with industrial activity or whose discharge is composed of both stormwater and non-stormwater.” If the applicant selects “Yes” to this item, they are directed to complete Form 1 and Form 2F unless exempted by 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) or 122.26(b)(15). Form 2F’s instructions, in the Notes inset on page 2F-1, provide further instructions regarding which additional forms that applicants with discharges “composed of both stormwater and non- stormwater” must complete. Given this additional clarity provided in Form 2F, it is reasonable for Form 1, Item 1.2.5 to include the one “Yes” option for applicants.

C. Other

Regarding the comments related to burden, see the EPA’s response to code 7 as well as the information collection request for this final rule. The information collection request for this final rule can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629, accessible online at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0629.

Regarding the comment related to Form 1, see the EPA’s response to code 8.a as well as the revised NPDES application forms.

One comment suggested that Form 2F should not be required because it provides no additional information to the permitting authority. The EPA disagrees and notes that neither the proposed or final rule contemplated changing the requirements related to Form 2F. Thus, this comment goes

8-39 8.g - Permit Application Comments - Form 2F

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Because this comment does not provide any specific information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining specifically to any elements contained in the EPA’s proposed rule or this final rule, it is not considered to be a substantive or significant comment, and therefore, does not require a response.

8-40 8.g - Permit Application Comments - Form 2F

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.h - Permit Application Comments - Form 2S

Commenter Name: Jon M. Stomp, III, P.E. Commenter Affiliation: Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0158-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment Excerpt:

Revisions to NPOES Application Form 2A and Form 2S. EPA is proposing changes to the standard EPA forms for the NPDES program. The Water Authority suggests that EPA include a reference to 40 CFR 122.21 (j)(4)(iv) so that permittees are aware of the requirement to monitor for parameters listed in applicable water quality standards.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule included specific, targeted changes to the application requirements in 40 CFR 122.21. The proposed rule made clear that, for this rulemaking, EPA was seeking comment only on those specific proposed targeted changes to the application requirements in the May 18, 2016 proposed rule (see 81 FR 31352). Additionally, the proposed rule indicated that EPA had established a separate docket (EPA-HQ- OW-2016-0146) to receive comments on potential future changes to the application forms and information requests. Specifically, EPA requested comment on whether and how a separate future action should address the utility and clarity of the information requests and on how to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology (see 81 FR 31367).

The EPA acknowledges the comments received on the permit application forms in both dockets and reviewed the comments to determine whether any pertained to the specific elements included in the proposed rule. In addition to finalizing the proposal to update the NPDES application forms to be consistent with the requirements included in this first final rule, as proposed, the accompanying instructions for each form have been reformatted and enhanced for improved readability and clarity. As a result, the updated application forms have revised data fields refining the content and improving consistency among the forms, improving consistency with the current data standards for the Agency, and improving the clarity and usability of the forms. The EPA expects the revised application forms to be easier to use and understand, and will improve the quality of information being collected.

The Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda explained that the EPA would be finalizing the proposed rule in two separate but related actions. This first final rule addresses a subset of the revisions proposed in 2016 and modernizes the NPDES regulations, promotes submission of complete permit applications, and clarifies regulatory requirements to allow more timely development of NPDES permits that protect human health and the environment. Specifically, this first action

8-41 8.h - Permit Application Comments - Form 2S

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments includes revisions in the following major categories: regulatory definitions (“new discharger” and two definitions related to the discharge of pesticides from pesticides application), permit applications, and public notice. This final rule also updates the EPA’s contact information and web addresses for electronic databases; updates outdated references to best management practices guidance documents; and deletes a provision relating to best practicable waste treatment technology for publicly owned treatment works that is no longer applicable. See also the final rule and preamble to the final rule.

The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to eleven regulatory sections. The EPA received numerous comments on these eleven topics, and the Agency requires additional time to analyze these comments and deliberate on appropriate next steps. Because the EPA is deferring final action and has not made any final substantive decisions with respect to the following eleven topics, comments received on these topics do not require a response at this time.

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

B. Other

One comment suggested that EPA include a reference to 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(iv) to ensure permittees are aware of the requirement to monitor for parameters listed in applicable water quality standards. The requirement in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(iv) that states: “The following applicants must sample and analyze for the pollutants listed in appendix J, Table 2 of this part, and for any other pollutants for which the State or EPA have established water quality standards

8-42 8.h - Permit Application Comments - Form 2S

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments applicable to the receiving waters: (A) All POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day; (B) All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required to develop a pretreatment program; (C) Other POTWs, as required by the Director.” The EPA notes that the revised Form 2A, Section 3 includes the title “Section 3. Information on Effluent Discharges (40 CFR 122.21(j)(3) to (5)),” which includes the reference to 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4). The EPA also notes that Form 2A, Item 3.16 asks applicants to indicate whether the conditions outlined in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(iv)(A)—(C) applies to the applicant in order to determine what monitoring is required by the regulations.

8-43 8.h - Permit Application Comments - Form 2S

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

8.i - General - Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Permit Applications The EPA did not receive any comments related to this topic.

8-44 8.i - General - Comments Outside Scope or Unrelated to Permit Applications

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

Commenter Name: Jaime C. Gaggero, Director Commenter Affiliation: Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0099-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment Excerpt:

Several of the proposed regulations would necessitate a statute and/or regulation change before it could be implemented. One example that would require a statute and/or regulatory change would be the public notice of NPDES permits on the agency website whether offered as an option for the State or mandated by EPA in the final rule. Currently KDHE is required by State law to public notice NPDES permits in the Kansas Register. The final rule needs to allow States a minimum of two years to implement any statutory and/or regulatory revisions. In Kansas, it takes longer than a year to develop language changes, conduct needed outreach activities, and navigate the regulatory adoption process mandated by State law. In regard to the actual implementation of the final rule as it relates to permit application information, permits, and permit fact sheets, EPA should clearly state in either the final rule text and the preamble that required changes to facility specific permit application information, permits, and permit fact sheets are expected to be incorporated as those applicable permits come up for renewal, but no sooner than two years after the effective date of the final rule.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

• Compliance Dates

EPA should require states to comply with these revisions immediately upon the effective date of the final rule. Every revision that EPA has proposed is, by definition, entirely within the authority of any EPA-approved NPDES program. Accordingly, nothing in the proposed revisions triggers the 1- or 2-year grace periods under 40 C.F.R. § 123.62.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

9-1 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment Excerpt:

First, and most importantly, we agree with EPA’s assessment that using the web to share all permit information electronically (draft permit, hearing notice, factsheet, final permit, etc.) over the lifetime of the permit will significantly improve public access and in many cases could result in financial and time savings to the permit authority.191 Making all permit information electronically available will also make it easier for organizations to disseminate information to their members, coalition partners and other stakeholders. Considering that most (if not all) permitting authorities already maintain a public website, and most already post at least some permit information there, the costs of requiring that such information be posted on the web for all permits are likely to be minimal for most permitting authorities. This is equally likely to be true for “non-major” NPDES permits as it is for “major” NPDES permits. Accordingly, we recommend that EPA require for all NPDES permits that agencies post public notices and permit information on their websites. We also recommend that, given the likely minimal costs and burdens associated with this requirement, that it go into effect within 180 days after this rule is finalized.

191 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,358-59.

Commenter Name: Casey Roberts Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 64

Comment Excerpt:

VIII. EPA SHOULD REMOVE THE “COMPLIANCE DATES” SECTION OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND CLARIFY THAT DELEGATED STATE NPDES PROGRAMS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REVISED RULE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE RULE’S EFFECTIVE DATE.

In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA states: “Following issuance of this rule, authorized states have up to one year to revise, as necessary, their NPDES regulations to adopt the requirements of this rule, or two years if statutory changes are needed, as provided at 40 C.F.R. 123.62.”238 This suggests that states NPDES authorities may lack the legal authority to implement certain provisions of the rule, under existing state regulations or statutes. However, the contents of the proposed rule and EPA’s characterizations of the proposed changes clearly show that this is not the case.

As explained below, everything EPA proposes is, by definition, entirely within the authority of any EPA-approved NPDES program. Accordingly, nothing in the proposed revisions triggers the 1- or 2-year grace periods under 40 C.F.R. § 123.62. EPA should explain in the final rule that

9-2 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments states must comply with the final rule immediately upon its effective date. Throughout the proposed rule, EPA expressly states that many of the proposed revisions do not create new legal requirements, but rather clarify existing requirements of the Clean Water Act or EPA regulations, to which state NPDES programs are already subject. To the extent any remaining provisions create “new” requirements for state NPDES programs, those requirements are entirely within the scope of authority that the state programs necessarily possess already, as a condition of EPA’s prior approval of their programs. This is true of every provision in the proposed rule:

· Updates to pesticide applications definition (40 C.F.R. § 122.2). As EPA explains, the agency’s intent is that “[t]his definition would not in any way change which pesticide discharges are subject to NPDES permitting.” 239

· Updates to Whole Effluent Toxicity definition (40 C.F.R. § 122.2). As EPA explains, “...this proposed clarification would not change any existing regulatory requirements with respect to inclusion of acute or chronic WET limits in permits… Because permit limits would continue to be based on a state's applicable water quality criteria for toxicity, whether acute and/or chronic, the proposed clarification would not change current longstanding practice of implementing WET or increase any burden on permittees.” 240

· Updates to Proposed Permit definition (40 C.F.R. § 122.2). This definition is a part of EPA’s Administratively Continued Permits proposal, which imposes no new requirements on state programs, but rather is concerned with EPA’s authority to oversee state programs.

· Updates to permit application requirements (40 C.F.R. § 122.21). As EPA explains, “[t]hese revisions would not alter the type or quantity of information required from a new discharger.” 241 Therefore, state NPDES programs must already have legal authority to require permit applicants to submit the necessary information.

· Vessels Exclusion. (40 CFR § 122.3(a)). As EPA explains, “this proposed revision would not result in a new or increased effort and would not change the universe of permittees covered by the existing VGP [Vessel General Permit].” 242 Further, the VGP is issued by EPA, not the States. No new state program authority will be needed to implement the proposed revision.

· Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)). EPA proposes to clarify the types of information that must be considered when making the “reasonable potential determination” that is already required under existing regulations.243 As EPA explains, “[t]his proposal does not require collecting new information, but rather is intended to ensure that the permitting authority uses all available information...”244 Every approved NPDES program necessarily has the legal authority to use “available information” to make such determinations as it is required to make under existing NPDES regulations. Accordingly, no changes to state regulations or statutes would be needed to implement this proposal.

· Antidegradation References (40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)).. As EPA explains, “because antidegradation is an existing component of all state WQS [water quality standards], the existing regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require state and EPA permitting authorities to ensure that effluent limits derive from and comply with antidegradation requirements. EPA does not propose

9-3 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments to change any of its existing interpretations of WQS, antidegradation or any related existing EPA interpretations of state implementation responsibilities. This proposed revision is intended solely as a clarification, and imposes no new burden. The only burden related to this new reference would be where state permitting authorities are not currently implementing elements of their EPA approved WQS." 245

· Dilution Allowances (40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(i)). As EPA explains, this proposed revision would “clarify that while existing regulations allow consideration of dilution ‘where appropriate,’ any allowance for dilution and mixing must be applied in a manner that will ensure that NPDES permits contain limits necessary to achieve WQS, as required by CWA 301(b)(1)(C) and 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1).”246 As such, the proposed rule clarifies how delegated programs must properly exercise their existing authority to comply with existing law; it does not impose any obligations beyond the scope of existing approved NPDES programs.

· Anti-backsliding (40 C.F.R. § 122.44(l)). As EPA explains, “[t]his revision would incorporate the existing statutory requirement into the regulations verbatim and would not create any new requirements or information collection burdens.”247

· Design Flow for POTWs (40 CFR § 122.45(b)). This provision merely gives permit writers an additional option for calculating effluent limitations; it does not require delegated programs to do anything differently. 248 Please note that, elsewhere in this comment letter, we urge EPA to strengthen this provision, to place constrains on the exercise of this new option; again, since our proposed change concerns a calculation method that is optional for the states, it does not require state NPDES authorities to obtain any new authority under state law.

· Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR § 123.44). This proposed revision does not change what is required of states; rather, it provides EPA with the ability to shift permit-writing responsibility from a state to EPA, if the state does not uphold its obligations under its existing delegated NPDES program.249

· Public Notice Requirements (40 C.F.R. § 124.10(c)). This proposal, as drafted by EPA, gives states an additional online option for satisfying their public notice requirement; it does not require states to do anything differently. Please note that, elsewhere in this comment letter, we urge EPA to strengthen this provision, by requiring online public notice of draft permits, This approach also would not require any new state regulations or legislation; all state NPDES agencies have their own websites and have legal authority to post information (including notice of draft permits) to those websites.

· CWA 401 Certification Process (40 C.F.R. § 124.55(b)). As EPA explains, “[t]he proposed revisions to 40 CFR 124.55(b) would broaden the circumstances under which federal NPDES permits can be modified after issuance to include the addition of permit conditions based on more stringent section 401 certification provisions that result from state administrative or judicial decisions.” 250 Since this provision concerns EPA’s authority to modify federally-issued permits, no new state authority is required.

9-4 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

· Revisions to Fact Sheet requirements (40 C.F.R. § 124.56). As EPA explains, “[t]he proposed changes to the fact sheet content requirements do not establish any permit conditions or technical or administrative analyses that are not already required by the existing regulations. The revised regulations would require the permitting authority to document NPDES permit development work that the existing regulations already require.”251 Approved state NPDES programs, by definition, already have authority to document in fact sheets the analyses underlying NPDES permit limits. Accordingly, EPA’s proposal, which clarifies the level of detail required in that documentation, can be implemented by all state NPDES programs under their existing legal authorities.

· Deletion of 40 CFR § 125.3(a)(1)(ii). EPA proposes to delete a provision for which “[t]he statutory authority...was repealed in 1981 making this requirement no longer applicable.”252 Accordingly, the revision effects no change in existing legal requirements.

EPA should clarify in the final rule that none of these provisions requires any actions beyond the scope of existing approved NPDES programs, and that states must therefore comply with the revisions immediately upon the effective date of the final rule.

Finally, we note that it will often still be desirable for states to update their applicable regulations – for clarity and ease of use by permit-writers, permit applicants, members of the public, and other interested parties – to explicitly incorporate the provisions of EPA’s final rule. EPA may even wish to encourage this when issuing the final rule. However, a state’s interest in updating its regulations in this manner in no way indicates that the state lacks legal authority to comply with the new EPA rules under existing state regulations or statutes.

238 Id. at 31,366.

239 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,347 (emphasis added). EPA’s proposed language is intended to conform to recent case law concerning the applicability of the Clean Water Act to pesticide discharges. As discussed elsewhere in this letter, EPA needs to revise the proposed language to accurately effectuate this intent.

240 Id. at 31,347-48 (emphasis added).

241 Id. at 31,351.

242 Id. at 31,364.

243 Id. at 31,354-55; 31,365. (“This proposal does not require collecting new information, but rather is intended to ensure that the permitting authority uses all available information when determining the need for an effluent limitation for a new discharge. In addition, the revision ensures that the permitting authority is transparent regarding the process used to make the determination by including documentation in the permit fact sheet. This proposed revision would not result in a new or increased effort.”).

9-5 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

244 Id. at 31,365.

245 Id. at 31,353.

246 Id. at 31,353-54 (“This revision would not require the collection of new data and will not impose a new burden; it is intended to ensure that the permitting authority considers existing valid and representative ambient water quality data and to enhance decision-making transparency when permitting authorities consider a dilution allowance.” (emphasis added)).

247 Id. at 31,365.

248 Id. (“This proposal would not impose any additional burden or require any additional calculations.”).

249 Id. at 31,366 (“This proposed revision would not result in a new or increased effort for states. The proposal would not change the existing timeframes established in the permit objection regulations and would not require any new information to be submitted to EPA as a part of the process. It also would not impose additional burdens on authorized state NPDES programs, who have the responsibility to timely issue NPDES permits.”)

250 Id. at 31,359.

251 Id. at 31,366 (emphasis added).

252 Id. at 31,364.

Commenter Name: Michael Churchman Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Environmental Council, et al. Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0431-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment Excerpt:

Our organizations urge EPA to ensure that the final rule is implemented in practice as soon as legally possible. The preamble to the proposed rule suggests that states may need to amend their own rules before the new EPA rule takes effect. This does not seem to be correct. Because the final rule will be implementing core procedural principles of NPDES permitting, it would seem that every approved state program should already have authority to implement the rule. When issuing the final rule, EPA should speak to the issue more precisely to ensure that, to the extent that the law allows, all permits issued or renewed after the rule’s effective date will comply with the final rule.

Our organizations urge EPA to act swiftly to finalize a proposal establishing a mechanism to address the significant backlog of expired permits, which should include opportunities for

9-6 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments meaningful public involvement. We also urge the Agency to finalize a rule that requires permitting authorities to post all permit information online and that explicitly outlines what information is required in all NPDES permit fact sheets. EPA should also ensure that all permits issued or renewed after the rule’s effective date comply with the final rule as soon as legally possible.

Commenter Name: Martha Clark Mettler Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment Excerpt:

Changes to Existing Application Requirements (40 CFR 122.21)

Recommendation 12: EPA should ensure timeframes associated with developing or updating application forms are reasonable and not inconsistent with the timeframes articulated in the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.

Commenter Name: Leslie C. Rutledge Commenter Affiliation: State of Arkansas Attorney General Office Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0451-A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment Excerpt:

C. The compliance time suggested by EPA is woefully inadequate.

If the proposed rule is finalized without modification, EPA will require states to update their NPDES regulations within one year to meet the requirements of the rule, or within two years, if compliance requires a statutory change. While this timeline is found within the NPDES regulations, it is simply not adequate for Arkansas.

Non-controversial administrative rulemakings under Arkansas law generally require more than a year to complete; a controversial rulemaking may take longer. Indeed, as relevant here, any update of the NPDES regulation would require, at a minimum: 1) proposal of regulatory amendments by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), including required financial impact reviews; 2) review and approval of those proposed amendments by the Governor; 3) formal proposal of the amendments to the regulatory authority, the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission; 4) initiation of the rulemaking process by the Commission; 5) completion of the public notice and comment period; 6) response to comments by ADEQ; 7) review of the comments and final rule by the Governor and two legislative

9-7 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments subcommittees; 8) approval of the final rule by the Arkansas Legislature; and 9) adoption of the final rule by the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. That process is very likely to take longer than a year, and I, therefore, urge EPA to extend the compliance date for this proposed rule.

Additionally, I request that EPA consider amending this section of the regulation to allow states to fully complete their own rulemaking procedures. The text of the Clean Water Act does not dictate a timeline for compliance and this portion of the regulation should be amended to reflect the needs of the states in managing their approved NPDES programs.

Response:

A. General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the comments received in relation to the timeframe for states, territories, and tribes to revise their programs as necessary to comply with the changes made to the federal regulations as a result this rulemaking. The EPA received mixed comments, with some commenters expressing the opinion that state programs should be compliant with the changes immediately upon the effective date of this rule. Other commenters, mainly representing state programs, expressed the view that the timeframes for compliance be extended.

The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 123.62 describe the process and procedures for revisions of state NPDES programs. Subsection (e) of 40 CFR 123.62 provides that new state programs must comply with the applicable federal NPDES regulations immediately. That means that any new state, territory, or tribe assuming authorization of the NPDES program after the effective date of this rule would be required to comply with the federal regulations immediately. Any currently approved and authorized state NPDES programs have one year to revise their programs to conform to the changes made by the EPA to the federal NPDES regulations that are applicable to states through 40 CFR 123.25. 40 CFR 123.62(e). If, however, a state, territory, or tribe must amend or enact a statute to make the required revision, revisions shall take place within two years. 40 CFR 123.62(e). Those are the applicable timelines for authorized programs to conform to the federal NPDES regulations if changes are made at the federal level. EPA did not seek comment on this existing state NPDES rule adoption framework, and any comments asking that it be relaxed or otherwise modified are outside the scope of today’s rulemaking.

One comment raised the issue of enacting the conforming changes related to permit application information as permits are renewed. The EPA understands this comment to mean that state application regulations and corresponding state-issued application forms will be changed accordingly within the timeframes specified under 40 CFR 123.62(e) but that an existing permittee may not need to re-apply for a renewed permit, and therefore, may not need to answer any additional questions as provided by the changes to the application regulations as part of this final rule, until that permittee’s permit is up for renewal. Thus, implementation of specific aspects of this rule would occur as permits come up for renewal. The EPA agrees.

9-8 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Other comments asserted that the rule does not impose new requirements but clarifies existing requirements, and therefore, states already have the authority to implement the program in accordance with the revisions finalized in this rule. The comments continue, expressing that, therefore, those state programs are not entitled to receive the one- or two-year periods to conform to the federal changes made as part of this Rule and the requirements should apply immediately. The EPA disagrees. This rule involves both new requirements and clarifications of existing requirements. Each authorized state, territory, or tribal NPDES program has unique regulatory and statutory processes. While some provisions being finalized in this rulemaking do not affect approved programs (e.g., updating the EPA’s contact information), others do and are applicable to state programs through 40 CFR 123.25 (e.g., changes to application regulations at 40 CFR §§ 122.21(c)(2)(ii)(B), 122.21(f)(4), 122.21(j)(1)(ii), 122.21(j)(1)(viii)(2) and (3), 122.21(j)(9), 122.21(q)(1)(i), 122.21(q)(2)(i), 122.21(q)(8)(vi)(A), 122.21(q)(9)(iii)(D) and (E), 122.21(q)(9)(iv)(A), 122.21(q)(10)(ii)(A), 122.21(q)(10)(iii)(K)(1), 122.21(q)(11)(ii)(A), 122.21(q)(12)(i), and 122.21(q)(13) to require applicants to submit e-mail addresses). The EPA anticipates that most, if not all, authorized state programs will have to make some changes to their authorities to address new or clarified provisions, and therefore, the timeframes for authorized programs to make conforming changes, specified at 40 CFR 123.62(e), would apply.

For comments under this code that discuss provisions for issuing public notice, please refer to the Response to Comments essays 4.b, 4.b.i, 4.b.ii, and 4.b.iii.

For comments under this code that discuss revisions to application requirements under 40 CFR 122.21, please refer to Response to Comments essays 2.c. and 2.c.i – 2.c.ix.

For comments under this code that discuss timeframes for implementing changes as part of this rule in conjunction with the Electronic Reporting Rule, please refer to Response to Comments Essay 2.c.

The EPA is not finalizing the proposed changes to 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) due to the very recent (Dec. 4, 2018) enactment of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which exempts discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel from NPDES permitting requirements consistent with the existing regulatory language at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a). If the EPA determines as it implements the new Act that changes to the definition are warranted, it will make any such changes in a separate regulatory action.

For comments that discuss proposed revisions to the following subjects and regulations, the EPA is deferring taking final action at this time:

1. Definition of Proposed Permit (40 CFR 122.2)

2. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) (40 CFR 122.2)

3. Application Requirements - Latitude and Longitude (40 CFR 122.21(f)(2); (g)(1); (h)(1); (i)(1)(iii); (j)(1)(i); (j)(3)(i)(C); (j)(8)(ii)(A)(3); (k)(1); (q)(1)(i); (q)(8)(ii)(A); (q)(9)(iii)(B); (q)(10)(iii)(B); (q)(11)(iii)(B); (q)(12)(i); (r)(3)(ii))

9-9 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4. Reasonable Potential Determinations for New Discharges (40 CFR 122.44(d))

5. Dilution Allowances (40 CFR 122.44(d))

6. Antidegradation Reference (40 CFR 122.44(d))

7. Anti-backsliding (40 CFR 122.44(l))

8. Design Flows for POTWs (40 CFR 122.45(b))

9. Objection to Administratively Continued Permits (40 CFR 123.44)

10. CWA Section 401 Certification Process (40 CFR 124.55(b))

11. Fact Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 124.56)

9-10 9. Timeframe for States to Revise Regulations to Comply with Rulemaking

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

ATTACHMENT A – CROSSWALK OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE CODES

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0019 Samantha Baron Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0020 Anonymous Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0023 Anonymous Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0024 S.B.K. American citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0025-A1 Brett Hartl Center for Biological Diversity Environmental 2.b.ii Organization 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0027-A1 Jeanette Copeland Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0028-A1 Aaron Mainz Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0029-A1 Elizabeth Peterson Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0030-A1 E. Ellis Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0031-A1 Anonymous Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0032-A1 Donna Grace Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0033-A1 Helmut Maier Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0035-A1 Patricia Litchy Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0037-A1 Claudia Zappa-Martin Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0038-A1 Douglas Merrill Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0040-A1 Catherine Smith Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0041-A1 Eric Spray Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0042-A1 Mary King Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0043-A1 Joseph Sipp Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0044-A1 Lisa Wilson-Davis Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Trade Association 2.b.ii Utility Council 3.b 3.c 3.f 4.a.iv

A-1 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0045-A1 Beth McGee Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) Environmental 1.a Organization 2.b.ii 3.a 3.b 3.c 3.f 4.a 4.a.i 4.b.i 4.b.iii 4.c 6 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0046-A1 David Childs Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Trade Association 2.b.ii (FCG) 3.b 3.c 4.a.iv 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0047-A1 Carol Plantamura Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0048-A1 Cheryl Genet Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0049-A1 Bruce Tipton Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0050-A1 Dal Page Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0051-A1 Gary Coles Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0052-A1 Sally Kruger Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0053-A1 Carol Gerl Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0054-A1 Diane Varney-Parker Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0055-A1 Christina Snyder Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0057-A1 Leeann Bennett Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0058-A1 Joseph Rolands Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0059-A1 Jerry Colburn Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0060-A1 Connie Anderson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0061-A1 Emma Williams Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a

A-2 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0062-A1 Charles Yoder Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0063-A1 Rachel Makleff Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0064-A1 Diane Wolfe Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0065-A1 Phyllis Lager Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0066-A1 Damian Lopez Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0067-A1 Jenefer Ellingston Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0069-A1 Ulla Linenthal Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0070-A1 John Ramsay Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0071-A1 William Sommerwerck Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0072-A1 Francis Schilling Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0073-A1 David Hennessey Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0074-A1 Kevin Dixon CH2M-OM Services Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0075 Caleb Laieski Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0076-A1 Robert S. Lynch Irrigation & Electrical Districts' Association of Trade Association 4.b.i Arizona (IEDA) 6 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0077-A1 Jill Bicknell California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Trade Association 2.b.ii 3.e 4.a 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0078-A1 Karen Larsen California Water Boards State Government 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.v 2.c.vii 3.b 4.a.i 4.b.ii

A-3 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0080-A2 Kris Sigford Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Environmental 1.a (MCEA) Organization 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 2.c.iv 2.c.viii 2.c.ix 3.a 3.b 3.c 4.a.i 4.b.ii 4.c 4.c.ii EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0081-A1 Richard Yarnell Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0082-A1 Patricia Blackwell Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0083-A1 Mike Robe Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0084-A1 Mollie Brewton Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0085-A1 John Young Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0088-A1 David Feeger Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0089-A1 F. Paul Calamita Wet Weather Partnership Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a.ii 4.a.iii 4.a.v 3.b 3.f 4.a

A-4 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0094-A1 Jonathan Downing Wyoming Mining Associaton (WMA) Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.iv 3.a 3.c 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0095-A1 Joe Giudice City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental Programs Municipality 2.b.i 2.b.ii 2.c.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.vii 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.b.i 4.c 4.c.i 6 8.a 8.b EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0096-A1 Glenda L. Dean Alabama Department of Environmental Management State Government 2.b.ii (ADEM) 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 2.c.vii 3.b 4.a 4.a.iii 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.b.iii 4.c 4.c.i 7

A-5 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0097-A1 Michael Kuhns Maine Department of Environmental Protection State Government 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0098 R4 ICIS-NPDES Data Region 4 Water Protection Division U.S. EPA Region 2.c.ii Administrator EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0099-A1 Jaime C. Gaggero, Kansas Department of Health & Environment State Government 2.b.ii Director (KDHE) 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 3.b 3.c 4.a.ii 4.b.i 4.c 7 9 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0101-A1 Marianne Meadows Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0103-A1 Suzanne Cooper Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0104-A1 Evelyn Kirby Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0106-A1 Terry Laplante Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0107-A1 Michael Rusanowski Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0108-A1 Coco Gordon Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0109-A1 Richard Ely Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0110-A1 Chris Wright Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0111-A1 John A. Coates Florida Department of Environmental Protection State Government 1.a (FDEP) 1.b 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.v 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.a 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0112-A1 Helen Hoffman Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a

A-6 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0113-A1 Kristine Blake Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0114-A1 Sue Mackay Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0115-A1 Elizabeth Darden Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0116-A1 Cathy Della Pents Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0117-A1 Colleen Kenyon Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0118-A1 Mary Stewart Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0119-A1 Susan Rogers Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0120-A1 Scott Johnson Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0121-A1 Jack Scott Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0122-A1 Cynthia Ross Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0124-A1 Fahim Zubair Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0125-A1 Lawrence Riggs Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0126-A1 Patricia Schutjer Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0128-A1 Joyce Howland Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0129-A1 Bobbi Katz Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0130-A1 Adrienne Larson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0132-A1 Glen Walker Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0133-A1 Robert Haney Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0134-A1 Kim Novak Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0136-A1 D.S. Kiefer Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0137-A1 Mark Olinger Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0138-A1 Heather Lien Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a

A-7 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0141-A1 Nancy Lowell Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0142-A1 Mark Stento Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0143-A1 Judith Baumgartner Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0144-A1 Barbara Riley Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0146-A1 Eleanor Etter Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0147-A1 S. Tierney Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0148-A1 Doretta Reisenweber Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0149-A1 Max Hjermstad Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0150-A1 Lucia Maxwell Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0151-A1 Mary Francis Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0152-A1 Patrick Smyth Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0153-A1 Stephen Wilkins Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0154-A1 Karen Belgard Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0155-A1 Rasa Moss Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0156-A1 Andrew Bray National Pest Management Association Trade Association 2.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0157-A1 John C. Pierson Department of the Navy Federal 1.a Government 2.c.iii 3.b 3.c 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0158-A1 Jon M. Stomp, III, P.E. Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Municipality 3.b Authority 3.e 3.f 4.b.i 7 8.b 8.h

A-8 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0159-A2 Heather R. Bartlett Washington State Department of Ecology State Government 2.b.i 2.b.ii 2.c.ii 2.c.iii 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.iii 4.a.iv 4.b.i 4.c 4.c.i 4.c.ii 6 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0160-A1 Peter J. Regan Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA) Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0161-A1 Rick Clifton Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Municipality 2.b.ii 2.c.v 3.b 3.c 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.iv 4.c.i 6 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0164-A1 Neil S. Kagan National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Regional Environmental 6 Center Organization EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0165-A1 Pamela F. Faggert Dominion Resources Services, Inc. Industry 2.b.ii 3.b 4.a.ii 4.a.v

A-9 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0166-A1 Sarah Jane Utley Harris County and Harris County Flood Control Municipality 2.b.ii District 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.iii 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0167-A1 Ed Thomas The Fertilizer Institute Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.c.iv 3.b 3.e 4.a 4.a.ii 4.b.i 4.c 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0168-A1 Richard Metcalf Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a.v 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0169-A1 John Pastore Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Trade Association 2.b.ii Treatment Works 2.b.iv 3.a 3.b 3.d 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.c 4.d EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0170-A1 Bill Bissett Kentucky Coal Association Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.iv

A-10 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0172-A1 Peter Goodman Commonwealth of Kentucky Division of Water State Government 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 3.b 3.c 3.c.v 4.a 4.a.v 4.b.i 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0173-A1 Jon Tack Iowa Department of Natural Resources State Government 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 3.b 3.c 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.b.iii 4.c.i

A-11 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0174-A1 Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Southern Company Industry 1.b 1.c 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.viii 2.c.ix 3 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.i 4.a.ii 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.c 7 8.a 8.d 8.e 8.f 8.g EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0176-A1 Maria L. Race NRG Energy Electric/Gas 2.b.ii Utility 4.a.v 2.b.ii 4.a 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0177-A1 Aaron Hobbs Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment Trade Association 2.b.i 2.b.ii 4.a.iv EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0178-A1 Rebecca J. Flood Minnesota Pollution Control Agency State Government 2.b.ii 3.b 3.c 4.a.iv 4.a.v

A-12 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0179-A1 Patrick Cagle Jobkeeper Alliance Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.iv 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0180-A1 Roger Claff, P.E. American Petroleum Institute Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iv 2.c.v 3.b 4.a 4.c 6 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0181-A1 Carl VanderKolk Michigan Cattlemen’s Association Trade Association 2.b.i 2.b.ii 4.a 6 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0182-A1 Frederic P. Andes Federal Water Quality Coalition Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iv 2.c.ix 3.b 3.c 3.e 3.f 4.a.iv 4.c 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0183-A1 Michael Schon Portland Cement Association Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 3.b 4.a.iv 4.b 4.c

A-13 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0184-A1 George N. Clark Manufacture Alabama Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0185-A1 Kevin Kuhle Iowa Farm Bureau Trade Association 2.b 2.b.ii 3.a 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.iv 6 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0186-A1 Patti Hershey Lower Colorado River Authority Municipality 2.b.ii 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.iv 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0187-A1 James E. Colston Orange County Sanitation District Municipality 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 3 3.a 3.b 3.d 3.e 3.f 4.a.i 4.a.ii 4.c 4.c.i 4.d EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0188-A1 Cory Pomeroy Texas Oil and Gas Association Trade Association 1.b 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 3.b 4.a.iv 4.b 4.c

A-14 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0189-A1 Timothy Pohle Airlines for America Trade Association 1.a 2 2.b.ii 3.a 3.c 3.e 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.b EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0190-A1 Pat Boone New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association Trade Association 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0193-A1 Nina Bell Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental 1.c Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Organization 2.b.i Diversity, and Food & Water Watch 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 2.c.iv 2.c.vii 2.c.viii 2.c.ix 3.a 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.i 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.c 4.c.i 4.c.ii 5 6

A-15 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0194-A1 Michael P. Carlin Western Urban Water Coalition Trade Association 2.b.ii 3.a 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.c 6 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0195-A1 Kevin Frederick Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality State Government 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c 2.c.iii 3.a 3.b 3.c 4.a.i 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.c 4.c.i 4.c.ii 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0196-A1 Tucker A. Stewart Kansas Livestock Association Trade Association 2.b.ii EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0197-A1 Joyce Cutler Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0198-A1 Susan Hauser Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 2.b.iv 2.c.ix 3.c 4.a.v 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0199-A1 Ken Goldsmith Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v

A-16 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0202-A1 D.M. Hunter Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0203-A1 Diane J. Peterson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0204-A1 Teresa Trampe Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0205-A1 William Dustin Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0207-A1 Pat Becchetti Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0208-A1 Doretta Reisenweber Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0209-A1 Kraig Grivette Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0210-A1 Patty O'Keefe Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0212-A1 Kathryn Dorn Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0213-A1 Pamela Check Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0214-A1 Evan Anderson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0215-A1 Nikki Longaker Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0216-A1 Karen Cappa Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0217-A1 Sharon Morris Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0218-A1 Leslie Scales Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0219-A1 Audrey Ross Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0220-A1 Michelle Matel Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0222-A1 Deborah Garvey Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0223-A1 George and Frances Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a Alderson EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0224-A1 Diana Giaccardo Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0226-A1 Janet Flaherty Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c

A-17 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0227-A1 J Lemley Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0229-A1 Lesley Pillsbury Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0230-A1 Sheila Rekdal Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0231-A1 Amy Fass Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0232-A1 Robert Pierce Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0233-A1 Robert Petersen Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0236-A1 Marty Haroldson North Dakota Department of Health State Government 1.b 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c 3.a 3.b 3.f 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.c 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0237-A1 Carla Reid Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Municipality 2.c.vii 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0238-A1 Joseph P. Lapcevic FirstEnergy Corp Industry 2.b.ii 2.c.iv 2.c.viii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0239-A1 Roy McAuley Alabama Pulp & Paper Council (APPCO) Trade Association 1.b 3.b 4.c 7

A-18 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0240-A1 Brenna Mannion National Association of Clean Water Agencies Trade Association 2.b.i (NACWA) 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 2.c.iv 2.c.vii 3.a 3.b 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0241-A1 Robert P. Baumgartner Clean Water Services Municipality 2.b.ii 4.a.iv EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0242-A1 Andrew C. Brought SpencerFane LLP Other 2.b.i 2.b.ii 2.c.v 3.b 4.a.iv 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0243-A1 Luther Strange Alabama Department of Environmental Management State Government 2.b.ii (ADEM), State of Alabama 4.a.iv 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0244-A1 Buck Lindekugel and Guy Southeast Alaska Conservation Council and Inside Environmental 3.b Archibald Passage Waterkeeper Organization 3.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0245-A1 William J. Canary Business Council of Alabama (BCA) Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 3.b 4.a.iv 4.b 4.c 7

A-19 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0246-A1 Mark W. Wurschmidt Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky (SD1) Municipality 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.iii EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0247-A1 Nolan Stone and William Colorado Livestock Association (CLA) Trade Association 1.c Hammerich 2.b.i 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v 6 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0248-A1 Tracy Brunner and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Trade Association 2.b.i Brenda Richards Public Lands Council (PLC) EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0249-A1 Amanda E. Aspatore National Mining Association (NMA) Trade Association 1.a 2.b.ii 3.b 3.c 3.e 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0251-A1 Priscilla Howell City of Henderson Municipality 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 4.a 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0252-A1 Bill Matthews Cleo Corporation Electric/Gas 2.b.ii Utility 3.b 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v 2.c.v 6 7

A-20 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0253 Daniel C. Fischer Clark County Water Reclamation District Municipality 2.b.iv 3.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0255-A1 Michael L. Reitzell California Ski Industry Association Trade Association 2.b.ii 3.b 3.c 4.a.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0256-A1 Martha K. Landwehr Texas Chemical Council (TCC) Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.c.iv 2.c.v 3.a 3.b 4.a.iv 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0257-A1 Marleanna Hall Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. Trade Association 2.b.ii (RDC) 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0258-A1 Casey Roberts Sierra Club et al. Environmental 2.b.i Organization 2.b.ii 3.a 3.c 3.f 4.a 4.a.i 4.a.iii 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.b.iii 4.c 4.c.i 4.c.ii 9

A-21 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0259-A1 Julie Nahrgang Water Environment Association of Texas (WEAT), Trade Association 2.b.ii Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies 2.c.v (TACWA) 2.c.vii 3.b 3.c 3.e 3.f 4.a.iv 4.b.i 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0260-A1 Robert W. Johnson National Water Resources Association (NWRA) Trade Association 2.b.i 2.b.ii 3.f 4.a.iv 4.b.i 6 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0262-A1 Mark Meeks Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0263-A1 Linda Schneider Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0264-A1 Sharon DeCelle Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0265-A1 Maynard Clark Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0266-A1 Larry Bodiford Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0267-A1 Lawrence Rosin Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0268-A1 Lee Bartell Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0269-A1 Thomas Nowak Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0270-A1 Julie Cooke Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0271-A1 Judith E. Vido Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0272-A1 Donald Anderson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0273-A1 Linda Jung Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0275-A1 Reynaldo Hernandez Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0276-A1 Jarry Owen Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0277-A1 Patricia Guthrie Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c

A-22 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0278-A1 Alina Patterson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0280-A1 Susan Kepner Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0281-A1 Christopher Hall Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0282-A1 Deborah Larson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0283-A1 Shelley Hines Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0286-A1 Denise Potvin Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0287-A1 Marie Garlock, PhD Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c Candidate EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0288-A1 James Owen Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0289-A1 Jonathan Dudley Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0290-A1 Steve Spacek Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 1.c 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 2.c.ix 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0291-A1 Kimberly Rowlett Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0292-A1 Debbie Balasko Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0293-A1 Lisa Glassco Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0294-A1 Cynthia Patterson Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0295-A1 Mary Louise Dolan Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0296-A1 Gayle Janzen Private Citizen Private Citizen 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0297-A1 Carol Nau Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0298-A1 Susanne Ellis Private Citizen Private Citizen 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0299-A1 James Hubbard Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0300-A1 Jim Steitz Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 1.c

A-23 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0301-A1 William Sasso Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0302-A1 A.J. Averett Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0303-A1 Jennifer Reddy Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0304-A1 Charles Brexel Sr. Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0305-A1 Diane Selvaggio Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0306-A1 Gregory Lee Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0307-A1 Kimberly Rowlett Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0308-A1 Jill Halpern Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0309-A1 James Klein Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0310-A1 Bruce Hlodnicki Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0311-A1 Andy Bauer Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0313-A1 Margaret Datz Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0314-A1 Amy Goldsmith Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0316-A1 Stephen Klesic Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0317-A1 Terese Buchanan Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0318-A1 Patty Marrow Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0319-A1 Sara Young Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0320-A1 Julia Claire Hernandez Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0321-A1 S. and M. Hampton Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0322-A1 Drew Fenton Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0323-A1 LuAnn Glatzmaier Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0324-A1 Robin Baer Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a

A-24 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0326-A1 Carol Leonard Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0327-A1 Nancy Gehlhausen Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0328-A1 Joanne Corey Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0329-A1 Dick Brown Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0330-A1 Anne Lusby-Denham Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0333-A1 Lynn Hartung Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0334-A1 Joyce Loving Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0338-A1 Eleanor Mack Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0339-A1 Peggy Ricci Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0340-A1 Steve Marvin Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0341-A1 Peter van Dorsten Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0342-A1 Nancy Bush Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0343-A1 Grace Soltis Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0344-A1 David Svetich Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0345-A1 Charlotte Fremaux Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0346-A1 Annie Grewe Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0347-A1 Malgorzata Schmidt Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0348-A1 Claire Brothers Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0349-A1 Roger Smith Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0351-A1 Jennifer Kennedy Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0352-A1 Maria Celia Hernandez Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0354-A1 Eulia Quan Mishima Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0357-A1 Carolyn Barthel Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0358-A1 Ro Santiesteban Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0359-A1 Jerri Jarvis Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0360-A1 Carolyn Seibold Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a

A-25 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0361-A1 Stacey Nozaki Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0362-A1 Betsy Thagard Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0364-A1 Charlie La Rosa Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0365-A1 Jim Steitz Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0366-A1 Dede Tudor Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0367-A1 Sharon Lloyd Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0368-A1 Kelly Arellanes Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0369-A1 William Gies Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.i 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0371-A1 Carolyn Moon Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0372-A1 M Kirby Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0373-A1 Bruce Cox Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0374-A1 David Dow Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0375-A1 Petra C H Gampper Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0376-A1 Susan Weldon Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0377-A1 William Fox Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0378-A1 Charlie Cornwell Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0379-A1 Joe Weinstein Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0380-A1 Robert Owen Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0381-A1 Jane Beattie Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0382-A1 Linda Yow Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0383-A1 Linda Henson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0384-A1 George and Frances Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a Alderson EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0385-A1 Bonnie Westbrook Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c

A-26 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0386-A1 Patricia Kunkel Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0387-A1 Julie Robichaud Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0391-A1 Michael Tenenbaum Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0392-A1 Katie Hammer Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0393-A1 Russell Bassett Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0397-A1 Olga Yellin Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.iv EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0398-A1 Maryanne Rackoff Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0399-A1 Paul Jeffrey Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0400-A1 Mary Jones Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0401-A1 Lance Biesele Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0402-A1 Phil Seymour Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0403-A1 Dana Clark Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0404-A1 Stratford Kay Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0406-A1 Laura Peck Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0407-A1 Janet C. Dwire Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.c

A-27 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0408-A1 David L. Smiga United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iv 2.c.v 2.c.ix 3.b 3.c 3.e 4.a.ii 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.b.ii 4.c 7 8.d EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0409-A1 Julius Ciaccia Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) Municipality 3.f

EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0410-A1 Tracey Maloney Dow Chemical Company Industry 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iv 4.a.iv

A-28 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0411-A1 Jennifer C. Chavez Earthjustice et al. Environmental 1 Organization 2.b.i 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 2.c.iv 3.a 3.b 3.c 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.a.i 4.a.ii 4.a.iii 4.a.v 4.b 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0412-A1 Carlton R. Layne Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation (AERF) Environmental 2.b.i Organization EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0413-A1 Mary Anne Nelson Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) State 2.b.iv 3.b 3.f 4.a.v 4.a.iv 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0414-A1 Debbie Webster Central Valley Clean Water Association (CVCWA) Trade Association 2.b.ii 3.a 3.b 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.a.v

A-29 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0415-A1 Deantha Crockett Alaska Miners Association (AMA) Trade Association 2.b.ii 3.b 4 4.a 4.a.iv 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0416-A1 Adam Link California Association of Sanitation Agencies Trade Association 1.a (CASA) 2.b.ii 3.a 3.d 3.f 4.a 4.b.i 4.c 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0417-A1 Christine Jochim Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.i 4.a.iii 6 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0426-A1 Janet A. Gillaspie Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies Trade Association 1.a (Oregon ACWA) 2.b.ii 3.b 3.c 3.f 4.a.ii 4.a.iii 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0427-A1 Richard D. Gupton Agricultural Retailers Association Trade Association 2.b.i 4

A-30 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0428-A1 Dennis Lathem Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama, Inc. Trade Association 2.b.ii (CMAA) 4.a.iv 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0429-A1 David J. DePippo Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Trade Association 1.a 1.b 1.c 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.iv 2.c.v 2.c.viii 2.c.ix 3.a 3.b 3.c 3.d 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.c 6 7 8.a 8.d 8.e 8.f 8.g EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0430-A1 Molly Cagle Cross-Cutting Issues Group (CCIG) a project of the Trade Association 2.b.i Class of ’85 Regulatory Response Group et al. 4.a 4.a.i 4.a.iv 4.a.v

A-31 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0431-A1 Michael Churchman Alabama Environmental Council, et al. Environmental 1.a Organization 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.v 4.b.ii 4.c 9 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0432-A1 Mei Mei Sanford Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0433-A1 Michael Petelle Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0434-A1 Pat Hackbarth Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0435-A1 John Novinson Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0437-A1 James M. Plett Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) Municipality 3.a 3.b 3.c 3.f 4 4.a

A-32 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0438-A2 Richard A. Hyde Texas Commission on Environmental Quality State Government 7 (TCEQ) 2.b.i 2.b.ii 2.c.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.v 2.c.vii 2.c.ix 3.b 3.c 3.d 3.f 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.iii 4.b 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.b.iii 4.c 4.c.i 4.c.ii 5 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0439-A1 Lloyd R (Rusty) Cress, Jr. Kentucky Chemical Industry Council Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a 4.b.i EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0440-A1 Grady McCallie North Carolina Conservation Network Environmental 2.b.ii Organization 4.a.i 4.a.iii EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0442-A1 Leanne Tippett Mosby Department of Natural Resources State Government 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.v 4.c 7

A-33 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0443-A1 Martha Clark Mettler Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Trade Association 1.a 1.b 2.a 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c 2.c.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.iv 2.c.v 2.c.vi 2.c.vii 2.c.viii 2.c.ix 3.a 3.b 3.c 3.e 3.d 3.f 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.b.iii 4.c 4.c.ii 5 6 7 9

A-34 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0444-A1 Jack C. Bender Utility Information Exchange of Kentucky Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.c.iv 2.c.v 3.b 3.c 4.a.iv 4.b.i 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0445-A1 Paulina Williams Texas Industry Project (TIP) Trade Association 1.b 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iii 3.b 4.a 4.b 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0446 Brian Eden Tompkins County Environmental Management Environmental 4.a.i Council Organization EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0447-A1 Cheri A. Budzynski Ohio Utility Group Trade Association 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.iii 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0448-A1 Claudio H. Ternieden Water Environment Federation (WEF) Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 3.a 3.b 3.d 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.c 4.d

A-35 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0449-A1 Tim Grotheer Colorado Waste Water Utility Council (CWWUC) Trade Association 2.b.ii 3.f 4.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0450-A1 Betsy Reilley Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) State Government 2.b.ii 2.c 3 3.a 3.b 3.c 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.b.i 4.c 6 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0451-A1 Leslie C. Rutledge State of Arkansas Attorney General Office State Government 2.b.ii 3.a 4.a 4.a.iv 9 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0452-A1 Bruce Fielding Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality State Government 2.b.ii (LDEQ) 2.c 2.c.iii 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.iii 4.a.v 4.b.i 4.b.ii 4.b.iii 4.c 4.c.ii 7

A-36 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0453-A1 Gil Rogers Alabama Rivers Alliance et al. Environmental 1.c Organization 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 3.c 4.a 4.a.iv 4.b.i 4.b.iii 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0454-A1 Don Parrish American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) et al. Trade Association 3.a 2.b.ii 4.a.ii 4.a.iv 4.a.v 6 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0455-A1 Name Not Provided Ohio EPA State Government 2.b.ii 2.c.ii 2.c.v 3.f 4.a.ii 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0456-A1 Albert Ettinger Mississippi River Collaborative Environmental 2.b.ii Organization 2.b.iv 2.c.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.iv 3.a 3.b 3.c 3.f 4.a.i 4.a.iv 4.b.i 4.c 4.c.i 4.c.ii 6

A-37 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0457-A1 Jeffrey L. West Xcel Energy Industry 1.a 2.b.ii 2.c.iii 2.c.v 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.iii 4.a.v 4.c 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0458-A1 Edan Rotenberg and Super Law Group, LLC and Waterkeeper Alliance Environmental 2.b.ii Daniel E. Estrin Organization 3.b 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0460-A1 Pat Ament Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0462-A1 Jan Charvat Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0465-A1 David Layland Private Citizen Private Citizen 2.b.ii 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0470-A1 Eric Thompson Private Citizen Private Citizen 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145-0474-A1 Wade Strickland State of Alaska, Department of Environmental State 2.b.ii Conservation 2.c.ii 2.c.iii 3.b 3.c 4.a 4.a.iv 4.a.v 4.c 5 6 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0011-A2 Paula Goodman WaterLegacy Environmental 2.b.ii Maccabee, Just Change Organization 4.a Law Offices 4.a.i 4.a.iii 4.b.i

A-38 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0017-A1 Robert C. Steidel Department of Public Utilities, City of Richmond Municipality 1.b 2.b.i 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 2.c.iv 3.a 3.b 3.f 4.a 4.a.iv 4.c EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0018-A1 Lori Olinger Private Citizen Private Citizen 1.a 2.b.ii 4.a.i 4.a.iii 4.b.i 6 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0019-A1 Susan M. Myers Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Municipality 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.v EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0021-A1 Christopher L. Risetto Center for Regulatory Reasonableness (CRR) Trade Association 2.b.ii 2.c.vii 3.a 3.b 3.c 3.e 3.f 4.a 4.a.iv 4.b.i 4.c 4.d 6 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0023-A1 David Sultana Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Industry 1 Power District (SRP) 3 3.b 4

A-39 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Specific Provisions Affecting Applications and Program Updates Final Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Comment DCN Name Affiliation Commenter Type Code EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0028-A1 Bryce West Peabody Energy Industry 2.b.ii 2.b.iv 3.a 3.c 4.a 4.a.v 4.c 4.c.ii 7 8.d EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146-0029-A1 Brian Carlson City of Vancouver, Washington Municipality 2.b.ii 4.a 4.a.ii 4.a.v

A-40 Attachment A – Crosswalk of Commenters and Response Codes