July 19, 2011 Jim McGinty, Project Manager Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. P.O. Box 42810 Houston, Texas 77072 AFIN: 30-00348 NPDES Permit No.: AR0049794 – Magnet Cove Dear Mr. McGinty: On June 24, 2011, I performed a routine compliance inspection of the above referenced facility. The inspection was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. This inspection revealed the following violations:

1. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has not been updated to meet the requirements of the new general industrial stormwater permit. The SWPPP at the facility was dated 9/9/2003 and was based on the old general industrial stormwater permit. This is a violation of Part II.6. of the permit.

2. The Non-stormwater discharge certification in the SWPPP on file was never signed. This is a violation of Part II.6. of the permit.

3. There were pollution prevention team members listed in the SWPPP that are no longer with the

company. This is a violation of Part II.6. of the permit.

4. The sampling tube was dirty and needed to be changed. This could affect the sampling results. This is a violation of Part III.B.1.a. of the permit.

The above items require your immediate attention. Please submit a written response to these findings to the Water Division Enforcement Branch Manager. This response should be mailed to the address below, or e-mailed to Water-Enforcement-Report@adeq.state.ar.us

Jim McGinty, Halliburton July 19, 2011 Page 2

NPDES Report Page 2

Sincerely,

Dawn Keller Inspector Water Division cc: Water Division Enforcement Branch

Water Division Permits Branch

NPDES Report Page 3

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Washington, D.C. 20460

NPDES Compliance Inspection Report

Form Approved OMB No. 2040-0003

Section A: National Data System Coding

Transaction Code

NPDES Yr/Mo/Day

Inspec. Type Inspector Fac. Type

1 N 2 5 3 A R 0 0 4 9 7 9 4 11 12 1 1 0 6 2 4 17 18 C 19 S 20 2 Remarks

A F I N 3 0 - 0 0 3 4 8 H O T S P R I N G Inspection Work Days

Facility Evaluation Rating BI QA -------------------------------Reserved------------------------------

67

69

70 2

71 N 72 N 73 74

75

80

Section B: Facility Data

Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For industrial users discharging to POTW, also include POTW name and NPDES permit number) Halliburton Energy Services - Magcobar Mine Site One Mile NW of Magnet Cove at 2000 Darby Lane.

Entry Time/Date 10:00 a.m. on 06/24/2011

Permit Effective Date 07/01/2008

Exit Time/Date 11:45 a.m. on 06/24/2011

Permit Expiration Date 06/30/2013

Name(s) of On-Site Representative(s)/Title(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Billy McAllister, Operator, 501-467-8355

Other Facility Data

Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Jim McGinty, Project Manager Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. P.O. Box 42810 Houston, Texas 77072

Contacted

Yes No

Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated)

S Permit S

Flow Measurement M Operations & Maintenance N

Sampling

U Records/Reports S

Self-Monitoring Program N Sludge Handling/Disposal N

Pollution Prevention

M Facility Site Review N

Compliance Schedules N Pretreatment N

Multimedia

S Effluent/Receiving Waters S

Laboratory N Storm Water N

Other:

Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 1. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has not been updated to meet the requirements of the new general industrial

stormwater permit. The SWPPP at the facility was dated 9/9/2003 and was based on the old general industrial stormwater permit. This is a violation of Part II.6. of the permit.

2. The Non-stormwater discharge certification in the 2003 SWPPP on file was never signed. This is a violation of Part II.6. of the permit. 3. There were pollution prevention team members listed in the 2003 SWPPP that are no longer with the company. This is a violation of

Part II.6. of the permit. 4. The sampling tube was dirty and needed to be changed. This is a violation of Part III.B.1.a. of the permit.

Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)

Dawn Keller/

Agency/Office/Telephone/FaxADEQ / Little Rock / 501-682-0658 / 501-682-0910

Date 06/24/2011

Signature of Reviewer

Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers

Date

NPDES Report Page 4

SECTION A: PERMIT VERIFICATION PERMIT SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSES OBSERVATIONS S M U NA NEDETAILS: 1. CORRECT NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE: Y N NA NE 2. NOTIFICATION GIVEN TO EPA/STATE OF NEW DIFFERENT OR INCREASED DISCHARGES: Y N NA NE 3. NUMBER AND LOCATION OF DISCHARGE POINTS AS DESCRIBED IN PERMIT: Y N NA NE 4. ALL DISCHARGES ARE PERMITTED: Y N NA NE

SECTION B: RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING EVALUATION RECORDS AND REPORTS MAINTAINED AS REQUIRED BY PERMIT S M U NA NEDETAILS: 1. ANALYTICAL RESULTS CONSISTENT WITH DATA REPORTED ON DMRS: Y N NA NE 2. SAMPLING AND ANALYSES DATA ADEQUATE AND INCLUDE: S M U NA NE

a. DATES AND TIME(S) OF SAMPLING: Y N NA NE b. EXACT LOCATION(S) OF SAMPLING: Y N NA NE c. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL PERFORMING SAMPLING: Y N NA NE d. ANALYTICAL METHODS AND TECHNIQUES: Y N NA NE e. RESULTS OF CALIBRATIONS: Y N NA NE f. RESULTS OF ANALYSES: Y N NA NE g. DATES AND TIMES OF ANALYSES: Y N NA NE h. NAME OF PERSON(S) PERFORMING ANALYSES: Y N NA NE

3. LABORATORY EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS ADEQUATE: S M U NA NE 4. PLANT RECORDS INCLUDE SCHEDULES, DATES OF EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR: S M U NA NE 5. EFFLUENT LOADINGS CALCULATED USING DAILY EFFLUENT FLOW AND DAILY ANALYTICAL DATA: Y N NA NE

SECTION C: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE TREATMENT FACILITY PROPERLY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED S M U NA NEDETAILS: 1. TREATMENT UNITS PROPERLY OPERATED: S M U NA NE 2. TREATMENT UNITS PROPERLY MAINTAINED: Dirty sampling tube S M U NA NE 3. STANDBY POWER OR OTHER EQUIVALENT PROVIDED: S M U NA NE 4. ADEQUATE ALARM SYSTEM FOR POWER OR EQUIPMENT FAILURES AVAILABLE: S M U NA NE 5. ALL NEEDED TREATMENT UNITS IN SERVICE: S M U NA NE 6. ADEQUATE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED OPERATORS PROVIDED: S M U NA NE 7. SPARE PARTS AND SUPPLIES INVENTORY MAINTAINED: S M U NA NE 8. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL AVAILABLE: Y N NA NE 9. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES ESTABLISHED: Y N NA NE 10. PROCEDURES FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT CONTROL ESTABLISHED: Y N NA NE 11. HAVE BYPASSES/OVERFLOWS OCCURRED AT THE PLANT OR IN THE COLLECTION SYSTEM IN THE LAST YEAR: Y N NA NE 12. IF SO, HAS THE REGULATORY AGENCY BEEN NOTIFIED: Y N NA NE 13. HAS CORRECTIVE ACTION BEEN TAKEN TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL BYPASSES/OVERFLOWS: Y N NA NE 14. HAVE ANY HYDRAULIC OVERLOADS OCCURRED AT THE TREATMENT PLANT: Y N NA NE 15. IF SO, DID PERMIT VIOLATIONS OCCUR AS A RESULT: Y N NA NE

NPDES Report Page 5

SECTION D: SAMPLING PERMITTEE SAMPLING MEETS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS S M U NA NEDETAILS: Sampling tube was dirty 1. SAMPLES TAKEN AT SITE(S) SPECIFIED IN PERMIT: Y N NA NE 2. LOCATIONS ADEQUATE FOR REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES: Y N NA NE 3. FLOW PROPORTIONED SAMPLES OBTAINED WHEN REQUIRED BY PERMIT: Y N NA NE 4. SAMPLING AND ANALYSES COMPLETED ON PARAMETERS SPECIFIED IN PERMIT: Y N NA NE 5. SAMPLING AND ANALYSES PERFORMED AT FREQUENCY SPECIFIED IN PERMIT: Y N NA NE 6. SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES ADEQUATE: Y N NA NE

a. SAMPLES REFRIGERATED DURING COMPOSITING: Y N NA NE b. PROPER PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES USED: Y N NA NE c. CONTAINERS AND SAMPLE HOLDING TIMES CONFORM TO 40 CFR 136: Y N NA NE

7. IF MONITORING IS PERFORMED MORE OFTEN THAN REQUIRED ARE RESULTS REPORTED ON THE DMR: Y N NA NE

SECTION E: FLOW MEASUREMENT PERMITTEE FLOW MEASUREMENT MEETS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS S M U NA NEDETAILS: 1. PRIMARY FLOW MEASUREMENT DEVICE PROPERLY INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED: TYPE OF DEVICE: Y N NA NE 2. FLOW MEASURED AT EACH OUTFALL AS REQUIRED: Y N NA NE 3. SECONDARY INSTRUMENTS (TOTALIZERS, RECORDERS, ETC.) PROPERLY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED: Isco-mag meter Y N NA NE 4. CALIBRATION FREQUENCY ADEQUATE: Y N NA NE 5. RECORDS MAINTAINED OF CALIBRATION PROCEDURES: Y N NA NE 6. CALIBRATION CHECKS DONE TO ASSURE CONTINUED COMPLIANCE: Y N NA NE 7. FLOW ENTERING DEVICE WELL DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE CHANNEL AND FREE OF TURBULENCE: Y N NA NE 8. FLOW MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT ADEQUATE TO HANDLE EXPECTED RANGE OF FLOW RATES: Y N NA NE 9. HEAD MEASURED AT PROPER LOCATION: Y N NA NE

SECTION F: LABORATORY PERMITTEE LABORATORY PROCEDURES MEET PERMIT REQUIREMENTS S M U NA NEDETAILS: 1. EPA APPROVED ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED (40 CFR 136.3 FOR LIQUIDS, 503.8(B) FOR SLUDGES) : Y N NA NE 2. IF ALTERNATIVE ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES ARE USED, PROPER APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED: Y N NA NE 3. SATISFACTORY CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT: Y N NA NE 4. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES ADEQUATE: Y N NA NE 5. DUPLICATE SAMPLES ARE ANALYZED >10% OF THE TIME: Y N NA NE 6. SPIKED SAMPLES ARE ANALYZED >10% OF THE TIME: Y N NA NE 7. COMMERCIAL LABORATORY USED: Y N NA NE

a. LAB NAME: Arkansas Analytical, Inc.

b. LAB ADDRESS: 11701 Interstate 30, bldg. 1, ste. 115, Little Rock, AR 72209

c. PARAMETERS PERFORMED: pH, Cl,SO4, Iron, Selenium, Be, Barium, B, Cr, Nickel, Silver, Zinc, Al, Cadmium, Lead, Copper, Manganese, TDS

8. BIOMONITORING PROCEDURES ADEQUATE: Y N NA NE a. PROPER ORGANISMS USED: Y N NA NE b. PROPER DILUTION SERIES FOLLOWED: Y N NA NE c. PROPER TEST METHODS AND DURATION: Y N NA NE d. RETESTS AND/OR TRE PERFORMED AS REQUIRED: Y N NA NE

NPDES Report Page 6

SECTION G: EFFLUENT/RECEIVING WATERS OBSERVATIONS BASED ON VISUAL OBSERVATIONS ONLY S M U NA NEDETAILS: OUTFALL #: OIL SHEEN GREASE TURBIDITY VISIBLE FOAM FLOATING SOLIDS COLOR OTHER

001 None None None None None Clear Grey slime present

SECTION H: SLUDGE DISPOSAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL MEETS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS S M U NA NEDETAILS: 1. SLUDGE MANAGEMENT ADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN EFFLUENT QUALITY: S M U NA NE 2. SLUDGE RECORDS MAINTAINED AS REQUIRED BY 40 CFR 503: S M U NA NE 3. FOR LAND APPLIED SLUDGE, TYPE OF LAND APPLIED TO: (E.G., FOREST, AGRICULTURAL, PUBLIC CONTACT SITE):

SECTION I: SAMPLING INSPECTION PROCEDURES SAMPLE RESULTS WITHIN PERMIT REQUIREMENTS S M U NA NEDETAILS: 1. SAMPLES OBTAINED THIS INSPECTION: Y N NA NE 2. TYPE OF SAMPLE: GRAB: COMPOSITE: METHOD: FREQUENCY:

3. SAMPLES PRESERVED: Y N NA NE 4. FLOW PROPORTIONED SAMPLES OBTAINED: Y N NA NE 5. SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM FACILITY'S SAMPLING DEVICE: Y N NA NE 6. SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVE OF VOLUME AND NATURE OF DISCHARGE: Y N NA NE 7. SAMPLE SPLIT WITH PERMITTEE: Y N NA NE 8. CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY PROCEDURES EMPLOYED: Y N NA NE 9. SAMPLES COLLECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERMIT: Y N NA NE

SECTION J: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MEETS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS S M U NA NEDETAILS: 1. SWPPP UPDATED AS NEEDED: DATE OF LAST UPDATE: 9/9/2003 Y N NA NE 2. SITE MAP INCLUDING ALL DISCHARGES AND SURFACE WATERS: Y N NA NE 3. POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM IDENTIFIED: Y N NA NE 4. POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM PROPERLY TRAINED: The 2003 SWPPP on file did not contain any records of employee training

and there were no records of periodic inspections. Y N NA NE

5. LIST OF POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES: Y N NA NE 6. LIST OF POTENTIAL SOURCES AND PAST SPILLS AND LEAKS: Y N NA NE 7. ALL NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGES ARE AUTHORIZED: Y N NA NE 8. LIST OF STRUCTURAL BMPS: Y N NA NE 9. LIST OF NON-STRUCTURAL BMPS: Y N NA NE 10. BMPS PROPERLY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED: Y N NA NE 11. INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED AS REQUIRED: Y N NA NE

NPDES Report Page 7

FLOW CALCULATION SHEET

Not Evaluated

Date: Time: Head in Inches: Feet: Type & Size of Primary Flow Measurement Device: Name & Model of Secondary Flow Measurement Device: Recorded Flow at Date & Time Listed Above: (Facility Flow Meter) Calculated Flow at Date & Time Listed Above: (Flow is calculated using flow charts in: ISCO Open Channel Flow Measurement Handbook-5th Edition)

% Error = Recorded Value - Calculated Value X 100 Calculated Value

% Error = - X 100

% Error = X 100 % Error = X 100 % Error = % Comments:

NPDES Report Page 8

DMR Calculation Check

Reporting Period: From 2011 04 01 To 2011 04 30

Year Month Day Year Month Day

Parameter Checked: pH

Loading Concentration Mass Monthly Mo. Avg. - lbs/day Minimum Maximum

Reported Value: 7.1 7.6 Calculated Value: 7.1 7.6 Permit Value: 6 9

If calculated value does not equal reported value, explain:

NPDES Report Page 9

Water Division NPDES Photographic Evidence Sheet

Location: Halliburton- Magnet Cove Photographer: Dawn Keller Witness: None Photo # 1 Of 1 Date: 06/24/2011 Time: 10:38 a.m. Description: Sampling Tube was dirty.

EXHIBIT A

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FINAL PERMITTING DECISION

Response to comments received on the subject draft permit in accordance with regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 124.17 are as follows: Permit Nos.: ARR000000 Applicant: Industrial Stormwater General Permit Prepared by: Amanda Gallagher Public Notice Date: The draft permits were publicly noticed on April 10, 2009. Date Prepared: June 18, 2009 The following comments have been received on the draft permit: Correspondence from Lisa Jacobs, Delta Natural Kraft, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/11/2009. Correspondence from Randy Thurman, Arkansas Environmental Federation, to Steve Drown, ADEQ, dated 05/07/2009. Correspondence from Vince Blubaugh, GBMc and Associates, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/08/2009. Correspondence from Garnett Wise, Safety and Environmental Associates, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/11/2009. Correspondence from Walter G. Wright Jr., Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates, & Woodyard, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/08/2009. Correspondence from Mark Bowles, Entergy, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/11/2009. Correspondence from John D. Morton, Alcoa, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/11/2009. Correspondence from Donald Watson, Watson Sawmill & Affiliated Companies, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/04/2009. Correspondence from Pennye Derryberry Bray, ECCI, to Mo Shafii, ADEQ, dated 05/08/2009. Correspondence from Steven Abrams, Environmental Services Group, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/11/2009. Correspondence from Jason Pence, ACME Brick, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/08/2009. Correspondence from Randy Wilkinson, Martin Marietta Materials, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/08/2009. Correspondence from Steve Card, Albemarle, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 04/30/2009. Correspondence from David Hall, American Electric Power, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 05/01/2009. Correspondence from Norma James, Arkansas Analytical, Inc, to Amanda Gallagher, ADEQ, dated 04/16/2009. Comments from Mr. Greg Withrow with El Dorado Chemical and Mr. Jim Phillips with Deltic Timber Corporation were not considered since they were received after the close of the comment period for the permit public notice.

1

The following is a summary of the comments received during the public notice period. Some portions of the permit have been revised and move around. The section of the permit referred to the issues refer to the sections in the draft permit. ISSUE #1: Has any economic impact / environmental benefit analysis been performed? RESPONSE #1:

Reg. 8.812 requires an economic impact and environmental benefit analysis be prepared when new regulations or changes in regulations are being considered by the Commission. The Industrial Stormwater General Permit (IGP) is not a regulation. 40 CFR 122.28 (a)(2) allows for a general permit to regulate stormwater discharges. Therefore, an economic impact and environmental benefit analysis is not required and was not performed for the Industrial Stormwater General Permit.

ISSUE #2: A commenter questioned why do certain CFR Industries only have to monitor annually per Part 3.1 as compared to other CFR Industries listed in Section 1.5 of Part 1, which have to monitor semi-annually per Part 3.3? RESPONSE #2: Some sectors listed in Part 1.5 have Effluent Limitations Guidelines (40 CFR 400 Series) regulating stormwater discharges. The Department chose to include certain industries that have stormwater-related Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) in the IGP (Part 1.6.3) in lieu of those industries having to obtain an individual NPDES discharge permit for those ELGs. Consistent with minimum monitoring requirements for NPDES permit limits established at 40 CFR 122.44(i), monitoring for ELG’s must be conducted at least once each year for the duration of permit coverage. The Department felt that annual sampling is adequate to enforce these permit limitations. The annual monitoring requirements are in-line with the EPA 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). Also, outfalls that are subject to the ELGs are not eligible for a reduction in monitoring frequency under Part 3.8.2 or for use of similar outfalls in Part 3.7.1. ISSUE #3: Several commenters requested to have 180 days from the effective date of the permit to submit the renewal Notice of Intent package and to update the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. RESPONSE #3: The Department agrees. The timeframe allowed in the draft permit to submit a renewal Notice of Intent and to update the SWPPP has been changed to 180 days from the effective date of the permit. ISSUE #4: Many commenters believe the submission of the detailed site map (subsequently becoming public information) as described in Part 4.6.4 could potentially represent a security risk. The EPA 2008 MSGP does not require submission of the site map for existing facilities. The provision to submit the site map should be removed from the “Other Required Actions”.

2

RESPONSE #4: The Department does not agree. The Department has requested a site map to ensure minimum BMP’s are in place and to provide a quick glimpse into a facility’s Stormwater program. If a facility feels the inclusion of certain information that has been submitted to the Department is a security risk or is proprietary, the facility may request in writing to have the information deemed confidential in accordance with Reg. 6.105. ISSUE #5: Why have the monitoring periods been increased to twice per calendar year? This should only apply to sites that have past sampling issues or discharges to areas that have in-stream water quality issues. The added cost and time required for the extra sampling punishes sites that are meeting current guidelines. Not all sites will be issued sampling waivers. RESPONSE #5: The annual sampling frequency in the 2004 IGP did not provide representative data for all seasons within the year. Bi-annual sampling will provide facility’s with better measure of the effectiveness of their SWPPP and BMP’s and provide the Department with seasonal data for all industrial types that can be used at the next permit renewal to adjust the monitoring requirements and parameter benchmark values as necessary. This is less stringent than the EPA 2008 MSGP that requires quarterly sampling. If a facility believes that they should be exempted from the monitoring requirements, they may submit past sampling results and a request to have the sampling requirements waived. The intent of the permit is not to put any extra burden on permittees but to protect the waters of the state. ISSUE #6: Several commenters provided the following regarding sample waivers in Part 3.8.2: a. The sampling waiver procedure in Part 3.8.2 sounds subjective. It should state that if your last 4

sampling results were below benchmark values you will be granted a waiver upon request. b. Some new benchmark values have been added to some sectors in Part 3.3. Will these sectors be

required to sample for the new requirements, or can they be granted a waiver per Part 3.8.2 based on past sampling results which may not include all new parameters?

c. Part 3.8.2 states that a facility that conducts a significant process change must continue monitoring

and may not use previous monitoring to demonstrate consistent attainment. Please define significant. RESPONSE #6: a. Part 3.8.2 provides sample waivers for a variety of situations (i.e. waivers for monitoring under the

renewal permit, for facilities with existing data, and for additional characteristics that may not apply). The sample waivers provide the Department the ability to prevent unnecessary monitoring when justification is provided while still protecting the Waters of the State. The waivers will be implemented as directed in the permit.

b. Sample waivers can be provided on a parameter by parameter basis. Existing facilities can only

request a waiver for those parameters that were monitored under the previous permit.

3

c. A significant process change is one that would have the potential to change the characteristics of the stormwater leaving the site.

ISSUE #7: Why are permittees required to keep records for 5 years in accordance to Part 3.12 when the majority of the CWA regulations require records be retained for 3 years plus current? RESPONSE #7: After reviewing the 2004 IGP and the 2008 EPA MSGP, the Department has made the decision to maintain the requirements contained in the 2004 IGP. The permit has been changed back to say that records must be maintained for three years after permit termination. ISSUE #8: a. Why does ADEQ need an annual report (Part 3.12.3.b) if the permittee is meeting all benchmarks and

guidelines? All data is included in DMR's. Sites that are having problems should be identified by ADEQ and extra information could be requested on a case by case basis. An annual comprehensive site compliance evaluation should include and address the information required in the annual report and is submitted with discharge monitoring reports in lieu of adding another report.

b. Does the Department intend to add additional staff to review and evaluate the additional data? What

provisions has the Department made to address the new work load (estimated at about three to five times the current data load)?

RESPONSE #8: a. Parameter Benchmark Monitoring is only one aspect of permit compliance. The annual report

provides the Department means to review what facilities are doing with their stormwater program and to ensure compliance with other portions of the permit in a concise manner (i.e. BMP). All facilities will provide a summary of the inspections and site compliance evaluation including any findings and actions resulting from the inspections performed during the year. Those facilities not meeting parameter benchmark values will also provide additional information regarding the corrective action plan for the exceedance. The site compliance evaluation does not cover all aspects of the annual report requirements. The submission of an annual report is consistent with the EPA 2008 MSGP. The permit will remain unchanged.

b. The Department acknowledges the comment but believes staff is in place to handle the current and future workload.

ISSUE #9: Why are the site inspection requirements in Part 4.6.6.6 increased to four times per year? What regulatory requirements support this request? The sites currently conduct a comprehensive site inspection at least once per year (Part 4.6.9). This should continue to be the minimum. If consistent problems are found during this inspection, the SWPPP and inspection frequency should be updated as needed.

4

RESPONSE #9: Annual inspections are not sufficient. Significant changes can take place at a facility over a short amount of time in addition to seasonal changes that may affect stormwater discharges from the facility. The quarterly site inspections are consistent with the EPA 2008 MSGP. ISSUE #10: The requirement to certify the visual site inspections in Part 4.6.6.6 is excessive and unnecessary since certifications are required for the Annual Report (Part 3.12.3.b), the SWPPP (Part 4.6.10), and the Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation (Part 4.6.9). RESPONSE #10: The Department agrees. The certification requirement has been removed from the permit. ISSUE #11: Several commenters requested clarification on the required number of dry and wet seasonal site inspections in Part 4.6.6.6. The language in the permit is unclear as to what constitutes four visual inspections, one dry season and three wet season inspections or is one dry season inspection required in addition to four wet season inspections. Some felt that it is impracticable and inappropriate to perform such inspections with extensive recordkeeping and site evaluation activities in Part 4.6.6 during a rain event. Others requested to have the dry season inspection to be performed anytime of the year, not just during July, August, and September since those months are not always dry. RESPONSE #11: Part 4.6.10.1 (previously Part 4.6.6.6 in draft permit) has been revised to clarify the requirements for visual site inspections in general, as well as to allow that only one inspection be performed when stormwater is being discharged, and to allow that the inspection for non-stormwater discharges can take place during a dry period anytime of the year. ISSUE #12: “General Permits" are often characterized as setting a "baseline" for all permits in an environmental media category (i.e. "stormwater"), with individual permits required in that category when compliance issues or environmental impacts occur. As such, general permits should be considered a regulation rather than an ordinary individual permit. What measures has ADEQ undertaken to assure adequate consideration has been given to appropriate public comment? Since this "General" permit has the effect of Regulation, is this regulation more or less stringent than the requirements of the Clean Water Act? RESPONSE #12:

The IGP is not a regulation. 40 CFR 122.28 (a)(2) allows for a general permit to regulate stormwater discharges. The IGP was public noticed and comments resulting from the public notice have been responded to in accordance with procedures contained in the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act (Ark. Code Ann. §8-4-101 et seq.), APCEC Regulation No. 8 and 40 CFR 124.10 (which has been adopted by APCEC Regulation No. 6).

5

ISSUE #13: The SWPPP is a working document that will be revised as changes occur at the site. While a majority of the SWPPP can be completed 30 days prior to commencing activities at a site, certain portions may not be finalized since there are many potential changes that will occur at a new facility. The permit should require that dischargers develop and implement the SWPPP prior to discharging at the facility. It was requested that the language requiring a new discharger to submit the SWPPP along with a Notice of Intent at least 30 days prior to commencement of stormwater discharges in Part 2.2 is changed to require that the SWPPP is developed and available for review onsite at least two weeks prior to commence of industrial activities. RESPONSE #13: The Department agrees in part. The Department understands that the SWPPP is a living document and changes continuously as stated in Part 4 of the IGP. However, a SWPPP is required to be developed prior to obtaining the IGP. Submittal of the SWPPP with an NOI will ensure that the minimum requirements of the IGP are met prior to granting permit coverage. Language will be added to Part 2.2 to clarify that the SWPPP is a living document and the Department understands that some portions of the SWPPP may not be finalized at time the NOI is filed and will be continually updated as needed after permit authorization. ISSUE #14: a. The draft IGP now requires all facilities to monitor for Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) in Part 3.3.

In many sectors, organic matter is not an issue. COD testing should not be required where it is redundant since this an unjustified burden on industry.

b. It is unreasonable to include the effluent characteristic “To Be Determined” in a general permit.

Permittees should not be subject to such uncertainty in a permit. RESPONSE #14: a. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is the most representative measure of oxygen demand for

stormwater from varying types of industry. COD, pH, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Oil and Grease are most common parameters that can be found in most industrial facilities. The Department believes that by requiring all facilities to monitor for these four common parameters, it will be a good indication of overall quality of stormwater leaving the site. The Department realizes that some of these parameters may not be present or be a problem for some industries. Facilities may request monitoring wavier for any parameters once the results are below bench mark values for four consecutive monitoring periods.

b. The Department acknowledges the comment. However, the “To Be Determined” effluent

characteristic is not contained in the public noticed draft IGP. ISSUE #15: When a permittee files a Notice of Intent for a general permit they are agreeing to the terms of that permit. Part 3.4 should not be included in a general permit since a permittee will have to agree to requirements prior to being informed of them. There appears to be no other General Permits currently written to give ADEQ the authority to arbitrarily require additional monitoring requirements after obtaining coverage under the permit.

6

It has been suggested that the language should be replaced with language that allows ADEQ to require the necessity of alternative permits if permit compliance or standards cannot be obtained or the language remains, there should be a well-defined process for the permittee to appeal the decision if they can provide appropriate rational. RESPONSE #15: In accordance with 40 CFR Parts 122.62 (a)(2) and 124.5, coverage under the IGP may be reopened to require additional conditions when new information is available that actual or potential exceedance of State water quality criteria and/or narrative criteria are determined to be the result of the permittee’s discharge(s) to a relevant water body or a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is established or revised for the water body that was not available at the time of the permit issuance that would have justified the application of different permit conditions at the time of permit issuance. The EPA 2008 MSGP also contains a similar condition. The Department will confer with permittees prior to the inclusion of any additional requirements or requiring an application for an individual permit. ISSUE #16: The requirement for toxicity testing in Part 5.2 should be based on specific criteria and not a case-by-case basis. Putting toxicity testing into a stormwater program is loaded with difficulties. How will the dilution percentages be set? How often will toxic material have the opportunity to get to a receiving stream if it is only from runoff? What portion of the receiving will be impacted by occasional stormwater input? It would seem like this would be better handled with an individual rather than a general permit where it could be directed at a source that is causing a specific problem. If toxicity testing is to be within the IGP, the situations that may trigger toxicity testing should be well defined in the permit. RESPONSE #16: The Department does not agree. Toxicity testing was introduced in the 1998 general permit and has been continued through the 2004 IGP and now the 2009 IGP for facilities that were unable to fulfill the passing requirements as well as for new facilities that the Director has deemed to warrant testing based on available monitoring data. Toxicity testing is a valid tool in determining if a facility has problems with pollutants discharging from their property. The toxicity language will remain in the permit. Part 5.2 specifies that samples shall be tested at 100 percent strength. Toxic material entering the receiving stream and what part of the receiving stream would be affected is site and case specific. A facility may always apply for or may be required by the Director to obtain an individual permit. ISSUE #17: Several commenters found the following inconsistencies in the permit. a. Part 1.5 - There are 29 Sectors (Sector A-AD1) listed in the table in this section instead of 6 as stated

in the paragraph above the table. In addition, Sector G is identified in the permit as Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) and Sector AD1 is “Non-Classified Facilities”. The language in the same paragraph should be changed to be consistent with the table of sectors.

b. Part 1.6.2 – Discharges designated by ADEQ as needing a stormwater permit as provided in Sector G.

The language should be changed to reference Sector AD1.

7

c. Part 3.7.2 (e) – Records and Reporting. The permit states, “ For each monitoring event, the permittee shall record and report the date and duration in hours of the storm event sampled; rainfall measurements or estimates (in inches) of the storm event which generated the stormwater runoff; the duration of the event sampled and the end of the previous measurable (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm event…….”. The definition of measurable storm event in Part 3.7.2.b does not contain an actual amount (0.1 inches). Is a measurable storm event one that is greater than 0.1 inch or simply any storm event that produces a discharge from the facility as described in Part 3.7.2.b?

d. Draft Fact Sheet: Page 1, bullet point #10 should be revised to replace the "May-October and

November-April" monitoring period reference with January-June and July-December. e. The draft IGP requires permittees to submit a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) and a

copy of the SWPPP to obtain authorization. This appears to be in conflict with Part 2.2 which indicates that submittal of the SWPPP is only required for new facilities. The language in 2.1.c. should be revised to be congruent with 2.2.

RESPONSE #17: The Department agrees. All inconsistencies have been corrected. ISSUE #18: It has been requested that the language in Part 3.7.1 (Similar Outfalls) requiring submission of the “substantially similar” documentation to the ADEQ be removed because it is burdensome for the facility. The language in the permit should be changed to state that “the documentation must be maintained in the SWPPP and recordkeeping files and made available to the ADEQ for review upon request”. RESPONSE #18: The determination that outfalls are similar is usually made prior to obtaining permit coverage. Submittal of the justification of similar outfalls has been removed from the permit. The NOI has been revised to include a section that allows the permittee to indicate similar outfalls. ISSUE #19: Part 3.7.1 (Similar Outfalls) indicates that each outfall must be sampled unless an outfall has been determined to be similar. The documentation of similar outfalls is to be submitted with the Discharge Monitoring Reports which are due following the first year of sampling. The timing is such that a year of sampling will take place before being given approval by ADEQ concerning similar outfalls. Does this mean that a facility must sample all outfalls during the first year? RESPONSE #19: The facility does not have to sample all similar outfalls the first year. The determination that outfalls are similar is usually made prior to obtaining permit coverage. Per Response #18, the language requiring submittal of justification for similar outfalls has been removed from the permit. The NOI has been revised to include a section that allows the permittee to indicate similar outfalls. ISSUE #20: Part 3.7.1.a lists a requirement to be considered as “Location of each of the identical outfalls”. No two outfalls will be identical. The word identical should be replaced with similar.

8

RESPONSE #20: The Department agrees. The permit has been changed. ISSUE #21: Part 3.7.1.e should be removed since most facilities subject to the permit are not qualified to determine the runoff coefficient and it adds no value to the assessment. RESPONSE #21: The Department agrees. The runoff coefficient requirement has been removed. ISSUE #22: The last paragraph in Part 3.7.1 does not appear to be complete. The first sentence of the paragraph ends in “the facility” which doesn’t appear to be attached to anything else in the paragraph. RESPONSE #22: The Department agrees. The phrase “the facility” has been removed from Part 3.7.1. ISSUE #23: The draft permit should clarify that stormwater discharges that consist in part of discharges that are regulated by another NPDES permit at the facility are covered by the definition of “stormwater associated with industrial activity” and are covered by the permit. The stormwater permit certification requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. §122.26(c)(1)(C) do not prohibit the discharge of non-stormwater through stormwater conveyances if such non-stormwater discharges are covered by an NPDES permit. Likewise, the general permit regulations at 40 C.F.R. §122.28 do not require the isolation of the discharge from an NPDES permitted source from a stormwater discharge. Accordingly, the general permit should specify that a stormwater discharge that is partly composed of a discharge regulated by another NPDES permit at a facility is eligible for coverage under the permit. RESPONSE #23: Based on ADEQ’s interpretation of this comment, ADEQ agrees that 40 C.F.R. §122.26(c)(1)(C) does not prohibit the discharge of non-storm water (i.e. non-contact cooling water) through stormwater conveyances, if such non-stormwater discharges are covered by another NPDES permit. However, Part 3.6 is referring to sampling of stormwater. Part 3.6 stated that sampling of stormwater must be taken before non-stormwater (i.e. non-contact cooling water) is mixing with stormwater. Additionally, 40 CFR 122.26(a) refers to discharges composed entirely of stormwater which no mixing of non-stormwater is allowed. 40 CFR 122.28 outline requirements for issuance of general permits which do not refer to the isolation of the discharge from an NPDES permitted source from a stormwater discharge. Therefore, any stormwater discharges that are mixing with non-stormwater other than those sources identified in Part 1.7 must cover under an individual NPDES permit. ISSUE #24: The EPA 2008 MSGP does not require the monitoring or measurement of flow from stormwater runoff. An estimate of the total volume discharged during the storm event sampled is a more reasonable approach

9

than an actual flow measurement. It was requested that measurement of flow be removed from the list of Parameter Benchmark Monitoring requirements in Part 3.3. It was also suggested that only the estimated volume of the stormwater discharged sampled is required for reporting purposes. RESPONSE #24: The Department agrees. Flow has been removed from the parameter benchmark monitoring table. Facilities must provide an estimated volume of stormwater as required in the previous permit. ISSUE #25: It has been requested that the language from the 2004 IGP be used in Part 1.7 j., so that the 2009 IGP will

read: “j. uncontaminated air conditioning or compressor, and other uncontaminated condensate resulting

from the condensing of atmospheric moisture onto cool or cold surfaces (such as the discharge of thawed condensate from the surface of liquid nitrogen tanks stored outdoors) where no detergents or other cleaners are used;”

RESPONSE #25: The Department agrees. The suggested language has been incorporated into Part 1.7.j of the permit. ISSUE #26: Part 1.7 of the draft permit specifies that certain types of dewatering activities are allowable under the permit so long as the activity is filtered. What is considered filtration? This item needs additional clarification. RESPONSE #26: The permit has been revised to offer further clarification on filtration and to be consistent with the Construction Stormwater General Permit ARR150000. The following note has been added to Part 1.7.l, m, and n:

“There shall be no turbid discharges to surface waters of the state resulting from dewatering activities. If trench or ground waters contain sediment, it must pass through a sediment settling pond or other equally effective sediment control device, prior to being discharged. Alternatively, sediment may be removed by settling in place or by dewatering into a sump pit, filter bag, or comparable practice. Ground water dewatering which does not contain sediment or other pollutants is not required to be treated prior to discharge. However, care must be taken when discharging ground water to ensure that it does not become pollutant-laden by traversing over disturbed soils or other pollutant sources.”

ISSUE #27: What is the foundation and justification for sampling for Total Iron in Sector E2 and for Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen in sector J1? This adds additional cost and financial burden on businesses covered under this Sector. RESPONSE #27: The additional parameters assigned to specific industrial sectors are based on the EPA 2008 MSGP.

10

ISSUE #28: The benchmark parameters found in Part 3.3 in most cases, are very low without appropriate justification. One such example is magnesium which at 0.0636 mg/L is in most cases well below normal background levels in streams in Arkansas. If the justification for the benchmark is nothing more than the method detection limit times a factor of 3.18, the benchmark should be removed from consideration. RESPONSE #28: The parameter benchmark values have been continued from the previous permit for the majority of the effluent characteristics. The parameter benchmark value for magnesium is consistent with the EPA 2008 MSGP and remains unchanged. If a facility feels that a different benchmark value is more appropriate for their facility, the option is available per Part 3.10 of the permit to develop an alternative to parameter benchmark values. ISSUE #29: Part 3.3 lists the parameter benchmark monitoring requirements. The benchmark parameter for aluminum is listed as 0.75 mg/L. In other states, including Texas, the benchmark value for aluminum is 1.20 mg/L. If the Department does not eliminate the benchmark monitoring requirements, it has been requested that the benchmark value for aluminum be increased to 1.20 mg/L. RESPONSE #29: The Department acknowledges the comment. The parameter benchmark value for Aluminum is consistent with the EPA 2008 MSGP. Without a proper study, the Department cannot determine if the parameter benchmark value for Aluminum for the State of Texas is appropriate. Until such time as a proper evaluation has been performed, the parameter benchmark value for Aluminum will remain unchanged. If a facility feels that a different benchmark value is more appropriate for their facility, the option is available per Part 3.10 of the permit to develop an alternative to parameter benchmark values. ISSUE #31: It should also be noted that the benchmark value for arsenic for Sector K1 is 0.15 mg/L and 0.16854 mg/L for other Sectors without an explanation for the difference. It should also be noted that a superscript is associated with the ammonia for Sector S1 that is not referenced elsewhere. RESPONSE #30: The 0.15 mg/l value in Sector K1 is a mistake. It should be 0.16854. The permit has been corrected for both the arsenic value in Sector K1 and the subscript in Sector S1. ISSUE #31: Pennsylvania conducted a study of the monitoring requirements in its general permit for stormwater associated with industrial activity. The report recommended that some parameters commonly monitoring for in stormwater discharges, such as BOD5, pH, and oil and grease, should be eliminated from certain industrial categories because they are not routinely present. It has been suggested for ADEQ to evaluate the parameter benchmark values and their appropriateness for use in stormwater permitting in the State of Arkansas.

11

RESPONSE #31: The Department does not have significant information on all types of industrial sectors to be able to determine what effluent characteristics should be applied to those sectors for the state of Arkansas. The proposed IGP will allow the Department to gather data for all types of industrial sectors for multiple points throughout the year. With this additional information the Department can begin correlating the data to have the ability to adjust monitoring requirements in future permits. ISSUE #32: ADEQ should carefully consider the number of decimal points listed in a benchmark value in Part 3.9. For some parameters, the use of 4 or more decimal points means a discharger would need to use a costly test method to determine that level of accuracy – if it can be achieved at all. RESPONSE #32: The Department agrees. The Parameter Benchmark Values have been evaluated for the number of decimal places. The Arsenic, Lead, Selenium, and Zinc have been adjusted. ISSUE #33: The proposed Benchmark value for iron is 1 mg/l. Iron is ubiquitous in Arkansas and is prevalent in Arkansas soils. Iron concentrations in excess of 1 mg/l occur in waters that are not exposed to industrial activity. Due to the ubiquitous nature of iron and given that no water quality standard for iron has been established by EPA or ADEQ, it has been requested that iron be removed from the list of Benchmark parameters. RESPONSE #33: The parameter benchmark value for iron is consistent with the EPA 2008 MSGP and remains unchanged. If a facility feels that a different benchmark value is more appropriate for their facility, the option is available per Part 3.10 of the permit to develop an alternative to parameter benchmark values. Additionally with the information that the Department is proposing to gather through the stormwater monitoring, the Department may in the future be able to eliminate or change parameters to adequately reflect the conditions of water within the state. ISSUE #34: Part 3.12.2 requires that the exact place of the sample be documented; does this mean that a survey is required? Does the location of the outfall as shown on the Site Map suffice? If not what is required to comply? RESPONSE #34: A survey is not required. The exact location could be a description of the sample point in relation to a particular outfall. If sampling is performed at the Outfall 001, then the exact place would be Outfall 001 as shown on the facility’s site map and coordinates provided in the NOI.

12

ISSUE #35: Part 4.6.2 discusses the requirements of the SWPPP associated with the pollution prevention team. Specific individual or individuals are required to be listed in the SWPPP per Part 4.6.2. It has been requested that the “term or position within the facility organization” be added to this paragraph. RESPONSE #35: The Department agrees in part. The permit has been changed to add “or position within the facility organization”. However, a statement has also been added that states that common position names may not be used (i.e. secretary, operator, etc). In that instance, a more specific position name must be provided or the specific name of the individual. ISSUE #36: It has been requested the following be removed from the site map requirements in Part 4.6.4:

• Location of all receiving waters in the immediate vicinity of the facility; • Indicating if any of the waters are impaired and, if so, whether the waters have TMDLs established

for them; • Indicating if you are treating one or more outfalls as “similar”; • Locations and sources of run-on to your facility from adjacent property that contains significant

quantities of pollutants. RESPONSE #36: The Department agrees in part. Indicating if any of the waters are impaired and, if so, whether the waters have TMDLs established for them is discussed in depth in the SWPPP and should not be required on the site map. This requirement has been removed. However, the Department feels that including the location of all receiving waters in the immediate vicinity of the facility, similar outfalls, and locations and sources of run-on to your facility from adjacent property that contains significant quantities of pollutants are necessary. These requirements will remain as proposed. ISSUE #37: Part 4.6.6.7 includes the requirement that the "employees who may cause, detect, or respond to a spill or leak must be trained in these procedures.” The requirement is overly broad and would, by definition, include nearly everyone at an industrial facility. Is that really what is intended? RESPONSE #37: This language is consistent with the EPA 2008 MSGP. It is up to the facility to identify the appropriate personnel. ISSUE #38: A commenter suggested adding language to Part 4.6.6.7 that allows training records to be accessible since records are often maintained and updated in a central database.

13

RESPONSE #38: The Department agrees. The permit has been amended to state that training records that are tracked electronically do not need to be maintained with the permit, but must be accessible upon request. ISSUE #39: The last sentence of Part 4.3 discusses visual monitoring that identifies the discharge or potential discharge of a significant amount of any pollutant. In most instances, it is impossible to determine the discharge of pollutant amounts from visual monitoring. The term significant amount is not defined and should be clarified or this requirement should be removed from the permit. RESPONSE #39: The last sentence that contained the word significant has been removed. The permit does not require a facility to perform visual monitoring. ISSUE #40: Several commenters provided the following regarding Part 4.4. a. Other Pollution Control Plans made part of the SWPPP should not be enforceable under this permit.

Other pollution control plans are already enforceable under other environmental regulations, some of which are due to programs administered by state and/or federal agencies other than ADEQ.

b. It has also been requested that this condition recognize the possibility of certain pollution control

plans may be subject to Homeland Security Agency confidentiality requirements or other legitimate business confidentiality purposes recognized in both federal and state environmental law and regulations. The following wording should be added to the end of the second sentence:

“, subject to availability restrictions imposed by Homeland Security Administration requirements or other security requirements imposed upon the permittee, or confidential business information exclusions in federal or state law and regulations.”

c. Only those portions of these other pollution control plans that are directly related to the SWPPP

should be made available. It is more likely that the SWPPP will be incorporated into comprehensive release reporting plans that incorporate the release reporting of the various environmental media laws (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, TSCA, SDWA, and so forth), which require the development of information not related to storm water discharges. These sections of an overall plan should not be covered by a general storm water permit.

RESPONSE #40 a. If the portion of the plan that has been incorporated into the SWPPP is related to stormwater and not

governed by another program or agency, the section will become enforceable by the Department. The language has been revised as follows: “Plans or portions of plans incorporated into a SWPPP become enforceable requirements of this permit if the other plans are not regulated through other programs…”

b. The Department does not agree. If a facility feels the inclusion of certain information that has been

submitted to the Department is a security risk or is proprietary, the facility may request in writing to have the information deemed confidential in accordance with Reg. 6.105.

14

c. Part 4.4 already states that plans or portions of plans that have been incorporated must meet the

SWPPP availability requirements.

ISSUE #41: Part 4.6.6.9 requires a certification for the presence of any non-stormwater discharges; this is a one-time certification? Does this certification need to be completed a second time if the required yearly inspections in Part 4.6.6.6 reveal a non-stormwater discharge that is not allowed in this permit? Why does this certification need to be performed if the yearly inspections are also required, this is a duplication of work and is redundant. RESPONSE #41: The certification of non-stormwater discharges is usually made when the SWPPP is developed. The inspections are used as a tool to maintain that certification. ISSUE #42: A commenter requested to remove the definition for “Section 313 Water Priority Chemical" from the IGP since the corresponding references were removed from the IGP. RESPONSE #42: The Department agrees. ISSUE #43: A facility discharging stormwater into impaired waters should not be prohibited from obtaining the IGP (Part 1.9) if appropriate BMPs that mitigate the discharge of the pollutant causing the impairment can be used, since it is rare that industrial discharges consisting entirely of stormwater are identified in TMDLs as being a significant source of impairment. It has been suggested that the wording in Part 1.9.5 be modified to read: Discharges into Impaired Receiving Waters (303(d) List). Discharges from a facility into receiving waters listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, unless you comply with Part 4.6.7, related to best management practices to prevent to the maximum extent possible exposure contained in your SWPPP. RESPONSE #43: The Department agrees in part. The language in Part 1.9.5 (Exclusion) has been revised to the following:

“Discharges from a facility into a receiving waters listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act , unless the permittee: a. document that the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired is not present at the facility, and

retain documentation of the finding with the SWPPP; or b. incorporate into the SWPPP any additional BMPs needed to prevent to the maximum extent

possible exposure to stormwater of the pollutants for which the waterbody is impaired and to sufficiently protect water quality. Please note that the Department will be reviewing this

15

information. If it is determined that the facility will discharge to an impaired water body, then the Department may require additional requirements.”

The portion of Part 4.6.7 dealing with the 303(d) list has also been amended to be consistent with the above. ISSUE #44:

Part 1.9.6 disallows permit eligibility for facilities that discharge to a receiving waters with an approved TMDL, unless the permittee goes to additional lengths to attain authorization. Unless there are direct correlations between a specific TMDL requirements and stormwater discharges, there should not be an exclusion for coverage under the IGP. This section should be removed from the draft permit. RESPONSE #44: Part 1.9.6 only applies when a stormwater discharge from a facility is regulated under a TMDL. The IGP must consider TMDL’s that have been developed, as well as those that have the potential to arise in the future, including ones that may relate directly to stormwater. Therefore, the condition will remain in the permit. ISSUE #45:

Part 4.6.7 should be revised to apply only to industries that are specifically named in a TMDL and/or discharge pollutants identified as the cause of impairment for the receiving stream on an approved 303(d) list. There is generally no correlation between 303d listing and TMDL requirements and stormwater flows from industrial facilities. Consequently, the broad application of this language to all stormwater permittees adds an undue burden to industrial facilities. RESPONSE #45: A stream listed on the 303(d) is impaired for a certain pollutant. All sources that have the potential to contribute to further loading for that pollutant must be controlled in order to further protect the water quality of the receiving stream. A TMDL would only apply to those facilities that may be discharging to a stream that has a TMDL only if the TMDL regulates stormwater discharges to that stream. ISSUE #46: Since the determination if a facility discharges to a 303(d) stream is proposed to be made by the ADEQ after receiving the NOI, this element of a facility's SWPPP needs allowance for additional time to update and implement. It is proposed to allow 120-days from receipt of the 303(d) notification from the ADEQ to update this element of the SWPPP. RESPONSE #46: The Department agrees in part. There should be adequate time allowed for a facility to incorporate any new requirements or conditions as a result of a receiving stream being on the 303(d) list or have an associated TMDL. However, this timeframe varies for different permittees. The Department will not incorporate a set deadline in the permit, but will work with each permittee on a case-by-case basis on a proper implementation schedule.

16

ISSUE #47: The IGP does not qualify whether or not this applies to an “approved” 303(d) list. Furthermore, placement of a stream on the 303d list should not exclude facilities that discharge stormwater to that water body from being covered under the IGP. The data used for 303d list is generally ambient water quality data collected under non-storm conditions and there is no correlation to stormwater discharges and that data. This section should be removed from the draft IGP. RESPONSE #47: The section will not be removed from the permit. A 303(d) list that has not gone through the review, approval, and issuance process cannot be used. The permit has been changed to reflect that the most updated 303(d) list will need to be used. Also, protocol for data collection for the 303(d) list requires that the data not be skewed but to be representative of all weather conditions. ISSUE #48: Did ADEQ do any kind of data analysis to determine the in-stream impacts on water quality vs. established in-stream standards? Is the basis of this permit based on a compliance history correlation that indicates more monitoring and reporting will actually improve water quality? RESPONSE #48: The Department did not perform any data analysis. Previous permits only provide the Department with data from a limited number of industrial types in the State of Arkansas. One of the advantages of the renewal permit is to allow for the collection of data from a variety of industrial types across the state. This will allow the Department to analyze the data and make changes to the monitoring requirements and/or benchmark values during future permit renewals in order to improve water quality standards. ISSUE #49: Monitoring under the terms and conditions of the new general permit (Part 3.5) should begin no sooner than 180 days following the issuance of the permit since it is unknown at this time when the permit will be issued. This will help to prepare facilities for the extensive monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. RESPONSE #49: NPDES permits are issued on one date and effective on another. The permit has been changed to allow for monitoring under the renewal permit to begin 180 days from the effective date (not the issuance date) of the permit itself. ISSUE #50: A commenter requested to be able to use data generated either prior to the permit, or developed after the permit becomes effective but sooner than the 4 monitoring periods be allowed for the Natural Background Pollutant Exemption in Part 3.11.3.

17

RESPONSE #50: The Department agrees. The permit has been revised to reflect that previous data can be used. ISSUE #51: The permit should clarify that if the condition in Part 3.11.3 a is met, i.e., that the concentration of the benchmark monitoring results is less than or equal to the concentration of the pollutant in the natural background, then the exceedance of the benchmark value is presumed to be attributable solely to the presence of that pollutant in the natural background. RESPONSE #51: Part 3.11.3.a has been revised to the following in order to make the part more clear: “If the permittee determines that the exceedances of the benchmark values is attributable solely to the presence of that pollutant in the natural background, the permittee is not required to perform corrective actions or additional benchmark monitoring. Provided that the following are met: a. The concentration of the benchmark monitoring results is less than or equal to the concentration of

that pollutant in the natural background (data from previous monitoring may be used); b. The permittee documents and maintains with the SWPPP the supporting rationale for concluding that

benchmark exceedances are in fact attributable solely to natural background pollutant levels. This must include in the supporting rationale any data previously collected by the facility or others (including literature studies) that describe the levels of natural background pollutants in the stormwater discharge; and

c. The Department must be notified on the annual report that the benchmark exceedances are

attributable solely to natural background pollutant levels. Natural background pollutants include those substances that are naturally occurring in soils or groundwater. Natural background pollutants do not include legacy pollutants from earlier activity on-site, or pollutants in run-on from neighboring sources which are not naturally occurring.”

ISSUE #52: The Department should not prescribe how to determine if exceedance is the result of natural background concentrations (Part 3.11.3) be done in the IGP. The permittee should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the background levels are the primary cause, and not the “sole” cause of the benchmark exceedance. It has been requested that the language in Part 3.11.3 should be stricken from the draft IGP entirely and each exemption related to background levels should be addressed on a facility-specific basis, after first giving the facility an opportunity to develop its own specific strategy. RESPONSE #52: The Department does not agree. This language, with the exception of the changes made resulting from Issue 51, is consistent with the EPA 2008 MSGP. The Department believes that a certain level of consistency is needed when documenting the Natural Background Pollutant Level Exclusion.

18

ISSUE #53: a. It has been requested that the description for a “Measurable Storm Event” in Part 3.7.2.b should

include the phrase “during normal daylight business hours” for employee safety concerns. b. It has been requested that the requirements currently proposed in Part 3.7.2.b. for a Measurable Storm

Event, be removed and the language EPA used in its 2008 MSGP be inserted.

RESPONSE #53: a. The Department acknowledges and appreciates the comment. However, safety concerns are

addressed in the Adverse Condition(s) section. b. The definition for a measurable rain event in the draft permit is consistent for with the EPA 2008

MSGP. No changes are necessary. ISSUE #54: Part 3.8.1 requires inactive facilities to submit a signed certification to the ADEQ “prior to the beginning of the inactive period.” This would not be possible for facilities that are currently inactive and the projected startup dates are unknown. A request has been made for the requirement to submit the notice prior to the inactive period and providing a projected start and end date be removed from the permit or in the alternative, all facilities which are inactive when the permit becomes effective are grandfathered and not required to provide this notice. RESPONSE #54: The Department agrees in part. The permit has been changed to allow for notification at the beginning of the inactive period. Any site that uses this exemption is required to notify the Department. Existing dischargers that have inactive or un-staffed sites at the time of issuance of the renewal IGP must notify ADEQ when submitting the renewal NOI. ISSUE #55: It has been requested that the wording at the end of the first sentence of Part 3.8.1, "but may be required if conditions at the inactive site warrant it", be deleted. The second sentence provides the criteria for not requiring monitoring, and includes the requirement that pollutant generating activities are not occurring at the site. RESPONSE #55: The Department agrees. The end of the first sentence of Part 3.8.1 has been removed. ISSUE #56: An exemption from reporting for “Inactive and Un-staffed Facilities” should be included as was provided for monitoring in Part 3.8.1.

19

RESPONSE #56: Reporting through the use of the Annual Report provides the Department information on the status of the facility (if active or inactive). An inactive or unstaffed site must still comply with other permit requirements (i.e. annual site compliance evaluations). Inactive or un-staffed sites must still provide annual reports in order to provide necessary information on the facility to the Department. However, the exception for inactive or un-staffed sites has been added to the visual site inspections. Inactive or un-staffed sites must still perform the annual site compliance evaluations. ISSUE #57: The language in Part 3.11.2 should be revised to require permittees to commence with a strategy for source identification and corrective actions within 30 calendar days, and document the date that the benchmark was first exceeded and the date of commencement of development of a corrective actions strategy. RESPONSE #57: The Department agrees. The language in the permit has been amended to allow the facility to commence with the corrective action process within 30 calendar days of the exceedance. ISSUE #58: Pertaining to Part 3.11.12, it has been suggested to follow the lead of the EPA's MSGP which (paraphrased) allows 4 periods worth of monitoring to be averaged, then if the average is above a benchmark parameter, then a review of selection, design, installation, and implementation of control measures to determine if modifications are necessary. RESPONSE #58: The Department does not agree. The EPA 2008 MSGP requires four samples to be taken in one year versus the IGP permit requiring two samples a year. The same approach cannot be taken as the EPA 2008 MSGP. A sample result for a parameter from the first half of the year for a facility may be below the benchmark value. The sample result for the same parameter may be significantly above the benchmark value for the second half of the year. The average of the two samples could be below the benchmark value but the facility still may have a significant issue on site. For example: Oil and Grease – Benchmark Value 15 mg/l Sample Results for January-June – 2 mg/l Sample Results for July-December – 26 mg/l Average of the two samples – 14 mg/l (below benchmark value). Therefore, the permit will remain unchanged. ISSUE #59: A facility should not be held responsible for any pollutant run-on from neighboring sources. If benchmark parameters are exceeded at the facility but concentrations are lower than background concentrations for the surrounding area or existing local data, then that should be taken into account and benchmark monitoring should cease. Part 3.11.3

20

RESPONSE #59: The facility is responsible for ensuring that stormwater discharges meet permit requirements. This also includes controlling sources of pollutants that may cause stormwater discharges to exceed permit requirements. Run-on could be considered one of the sources. In the end, it is the responsibility of the individual facility by using BMP’s to ensure that outside sources do not introduce additional pollutant to their facility. ISSUE #60: Several commenters provided the following regarding the Non-Compliance Notification in Part 3.12.5: a. The term significant amount in Part 3.12.5 is not defined and should be clarified or the requirement

should be removed from the permit. b. Also, the term “unable to comply with any terms and conditions of this permit that could result in the

discharge of pollutants in a significant amount” in Part 3.12.5 is too subjective. The specific type and magnitude of noncompliance should be specified. This paragraph should be deleted in its entirety from the IGP because it is adequately addressed in Part 3.11.2.

c. The submittal of a detailed written report within thirty (30) days as stated in Part 3.12.5.c is not

adequate time to develop a detailed report. RESPONSE #60: a. A significant amount is one that would have the potential to change the characteristics of the

stormwater leaving the site. b. Part 3.11.2 covers exceedances of benchmark parameter values. Part 3.12.5 in the draft permit goes

beyond an exceedance of a benchmark parameter. This condition encompasses a release that would violate water quality standards, etc. This is a standard condition that could be found in most NPDES permits. The condition will remain in the permit but has been moved to the Standards Condition Section, Part 6.23.

c. The Department believes that 30 days is adequate time to develop the report. The permit will remain

unchanged. ISSUE #61: The Department should develop and publish forms for the multitude of inspections, reports, and other recordkeeping requirements that are being proposed in the new permit and submit those proposed documents along with this permit to a reasonable public notice and comment period. RESPONSE #61: The Department acknowledges the comment. The Department may choose to develop forms or templates that can be used to show compliance with permit conditions. However, the Department will not require these forms to be used in order to allow flexibility for facilities. Since these forms are not required to be used by the permit but as a guide for permittees, they will not be public noticed. The Department always will accept comments or suggestions that may improve these forms or templates.

21

ISSUE #62: The No Exposure Certification form used by ADEQ contains information to help determine if a facility can actually claim No Exposure Exclusion. The same information should be included in Part 1.8 of the permit to avoid confusion. RESPONSE #62: The Department has made the decision to keep guidance out of the permit and maintain it in a separate document. The No Exposure Language is consistent with the EPA 2008 MSGP. ISSUE #63: How will Arkansas handle non-storm water flows which are currently authorized under the general permit provided the permit conditions are met, at facilities that opt for the “no exposure” exclusion? RESPONSE #63: The Department has added the question, “Allowed non-stormwater discharges go through Outfall?” to the questionnaire a facility must answer in order to qualify for the “No Exposure Exclusion”. If the facility answers yes to this question, then the Department will make a decision based on a case-by-case basis based on what allowed non-stormwater discharges are occurring at the facility. ISSUE #64: The no exposure process provides no guidance as to what constitutes conditions or situations that result in the facility losing its no exposure status – as well as what to do in those situations. RESPONSE #64: The No Exposure Exclusion is implemented in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(g). In accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(g)(3)(iii), if circumstances change and industrial materials or activities become exposed to stormwater runoff, the conditions for the No Exposure Exclusion no longer apply. In such cases, the discharge becomes subject to enforcement for un-permitted discharge. Any conditionally exempt discharger who anticipates changes in circumstances should apply for and obtain permit authorization prior to the change of circumstances. ISSUE #65: A request has been made for the Department to develop a general permit for the allowed non-stormwater discharges or develop some other permitting opportunity that will allow dischargers electing the “no exposure” exclusion the ability to ensure the non-storm water discharges are properly permitted. RESPONSE #65: The Department has numerous general permits for other types of discharges besides stormwater. The most recent general permit that has been issued is the ARG2500000, which regulates the discharge of Non-contact Cooling Water, Cooling Tower Blowdown, and Boiler Blowdown. This discharge was one of the allowed non-stormwater discharges in the 2004 IGP, but has been removed in the 2009 IGP. The inclusion of the additional question (See Response # 63) that has been added to the No Exposure questionnaire should address the issue of non-stormwater flows reaching a receiving stream.

22

ISSUE #66:

If a facility opts for “no exposure” exclusion and subsequently has material or activities exposed to storm water, what does that do to the exclusion? Under the federal program, such an event results in the exclusion no longer applying (see 40 CFR 122.26(g)(3)(iii)). The general permit does not give an indication what happens in this instance. Can the facility that loses the exclusion because of exposure re-apply for the “no exposure” exclusion in the future? If so, under what conditions, and what timeframe? RESPONSE #66: The No Exposure Exclusion is implemented in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(g). Thus, a facility with a No Exposure Exclusion that has materials or activities exposed to stormwater would loose the No Exposure and be required to change over to an exposure type of IGP which requires a SWPPP and monitoring. Any re-application for No Exposure will be evaluated by the Department on a case-by-case basis. ISSUE #67: Several commenters provided the following regarding Adverse Weather Conditions in Part 3.7.2: a. Sampling at night should be considered dangerous and added to the list of adverse conditions in Part

3.7.2. b. Due to the potential for scheduling conflicts, and other circumstances, rather than specifying the

substitute sample "must" be taken during "the next" qualifying storm event, it was suggested to use more flexible wording in Part 3.7.2 such as during "a subsequent" qualifying storm event, or during "the next practical" storm event.

c. Part 3.7.2 states that when adverse conditions prevent the collection of samples according to the

relevant monitoring schedule, a facility must take a substitute sample during the subsequent qualified storm event. Please clarify the meaning of this statement.

RESPONSE #67: a. This is already covered in general. Sampling at night could be practical at some facilities and thus

will not be specifically excluded. b. The Department agrees. The phrase “the next” has been replaced with “subsequent”. c. For further clarification, if a facility were to attempt to sample a measurable storm event and found

conditions were not safe, the facility may delay sampling until a subsequent storm event. ISSUE #68: The last sentence in Part 4.2 states that the Permittee must submit their SWPPP update within 1 week of receiving the request or at a later date if approved by ADEQ. This sentence is unclear. The submittal of a SWPPP update to ADEQ within one week of request by ADEQ is not realistic and should be revised to one month.

23

RESPONSE #68: SWPPPs for facilities must be current and maintained on-site. If the Department requests a copy of the SWPPP for a facility, one week should provide sufficient time to submit a copy. The permit will not be changed to 30 days. The section has been revised for clarification as follows: “…U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at the time of an onsite inspection or upon request. ADEQ may provide access to portions of a facility’s SWPPP to a member of the public upon request. If requested, the Permittee must submit their SWPPP to ADEQ within one (1) week of receiving the request if a date or timeframe was not specified in the request.”

ISSUE #69: The Industrial Stormwater General Permit addresses limitations on coverage. However, it does not address those who have the stormwater pollution prevention language in their current individual NPDES Permit. Is it ADEQ’s intention for these Permittees to maintain their stormwater coverage under their individual permit or will they be required to, again, obtain coverage under the industrial Stormwater General Permit? If they are required to obtain this coverage, please provide clarification as to when this coverage needs to be obtained. RESPONSE #69: The IGP will not address stormwater language in other permits. Individual NPDES permits that contains Stormwater language will be reviewed when the individual NPDES permit applications are submitted for renewal. The Department will make the decision on a case-by-case basis whether to remove the Stormwater language from individual permit. ISSUE #70: In the case where a facility has an ARG500000 General permit for Aggregate Facilities, the ARG500000 permit has stormwater language; will the facility also be required to obtain a General Industrial Permit ARR000000? RESPONSE #70: ARG500000 provides coverage for process water and stormwater not stormwater only. Facilities that are covered under the current ARG500000 may be required to obtain the Industrial General Permit depending on the facility. If a facility has a stormwater only discharge at the facility, the facility would need to apply for the Industrial Stormwater General Permit. ISSUE #71: ADEQ should reconsider its requirement to have each permittee submitting an NOI to determine the amount of information required in Sections III and IV, including but not limited to, the accuracy of how the facility and outfall(s) location latitude and longitude was determined, as well as determining the stream segment and hydrological basin code. Most permittees will be making this determination, at best, once every 5 years, and thus have very limited ability in this area. Unless the first determination is done accurately, it is most likely that all subsequent NOIs will use the values on the last submitted NOI. In addition, those dischargers near a watershed boundary (hydrologic basin) could have a difficult time determining accurately which basin their discharge is in.

24

RESPONSE #71: Information regarding a facility and it’s associated outfalls is required for EPA’s tracking system database, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). Therefore, the permittee must provide the Department with location details for their specific facility. The NOI is also signed under penalty of law that the information submitted to the Department is accurate. Please note that the Department reviews each NOI for accuracy and if the Department determines that the submitted information is incorrect, the facility will be contacted and the issues will be worked through. The NOI will remain unchanged. ISSUE #72: The certification of operator statement, currently on page 7 of the NOI, has the language in the second paragraph regarding endangered species removed. ADEQ should provide to dischargers another alternative for making this determination other than contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (as shown in the Instructions, Part VII, page 9). RESPONSE #72: The most recent and accurate information regarding endangered species is from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. All permittees must comply with the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species language will remain in the certification of the NOI. However, the certification has been revised as follows: “I certify that a request has been sent to U.S. Fish and Wildlife and that the facility will comply with the Endangered Species Act. (Not applicable for No Exposure Exclusions)” ISSUE #73: ADEQ may want to move the No Exposure Exclusion Certification to the end of the NOI package. The instructions on the first page of the NOI package states clearly, in all capital letters and bold font, to not leave any blank spaces in the NOI. That is confusing with the no exposure exclusion certification being in the middle of the NOI. RESPONSE #73: The No Exposure section will remain in its current location within the NOI. However, the instructions on the first page have been updated to include what sections must be filled out for a No Exposure Exclusion. ISSUE #74: It was suggested to add a field for "AFIN # (if known)" to the facility information section of the NOI. RESPONSE #74: The Department agrees. The AFIN has been added to the facility information. ISSUE #75: It was suggested to include a reference to the "endangered or threatened species" item that a response is only applicable to "new dischargers" in the NOI.

25

RESPONSE #75: All permittees must comply with the Endangered Species Requirements. Existing permittees still must certify on the NOI that they are still in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. ISSUE #76: It was suggested to add a yes/no check-off to Section X for "updated site map included" if that will be a requirement for all NOI's. RESPONSE #76: The Department agrees. The NOI has been revised. ISSUE #77: The use of the term “you” does make the permit more “user friendly”, it is possible the use of these personal pronouns may confuse individuals into thinking the IGP requirements apply to them personally or to more than one facility, rather than applying to the specific facility obtaining the permit. For clarity, it has been requested that ADEQ utilizes language similar to EPA's explanation of these terms in the federal Fact Sheet, in the IGP itself. RESPONSE #77: The Department made the decision to not use the term “you” in the IGP. All references have been removed from the permit and have been replaced with “permittee” or “facility” where applicable. ISSUE #78: It is not appropriate at this time for the Department to issue a new permit with extensive (and expensive) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements since there are no federal mandates to do so and current economic conditions suggest this is a time of fiscal responsibility. It has been requested that the Department reconsider the decision to change the existing permit at this time due to the additional administrative costs and burden created by this change and the lack of a federal mandate for these changes. RESPONSE #78: The Department understands and appreciates the facility’s concern with regard to this issue. The federal stormwater regulations contained in 40 CFR 122.26 require NPDES stormwater permit for several industrial activity. This industrial stormwater general permit is a statewide permit that provides coverage for these discharges within the State of Arkansas. Also, all discharges to Water of the State must be permitted and the 2004 IGP has expired. Without a renewal of the general permit, facilities would be required to get individual permits. EPA has issued new Multi Sector General Permit (MSGP) for this purpose. The Department has issued this general permit for most part to be in line with EPA’s MSGP permit. The Department understands that the additional requirements may cause economic hardship to some of the facilities; however, it is Department responsibility to preserve quality of the Waters of the State.

26

ISSUE #79: ADEQ is proposing to promulgate the IGP “in accordance with the provisions of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act (Act 472 of 1949, as amended, Ark. Code Ann. § 8-4-101, et seq.) and Ark. Code Ann. § 8-1-201, et seq. [the “Act”].” The IGC proposes to apply new requirements that will apply to the entire State of Arkansas and to all industrial operations in the State that discharge stormwater. ADEQ, by and through its Director, is authorized, among other things, to administer “permitting, licensing, certification, and grants programs deemed necessary to protect the environmental integrity of the state.” Ark. Code Ann. § 8-1-202(b)(2). None of the responsibilities delegated to ADEQ by the General Assembly include the passage of generally applicable rules concerning industrial operations. Instead, the General Assembly authorized the APC&EC to promulgate “rules and regulations implementing the substantive statutes charged to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for administration.” Ark. Code Ann. § 8-1-203(b)(1)(A). According to the plain language of Arkansas’ statutes, the General Assembly has granted exclusive authority to APC&EC to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the Act. ADEQ has no statutory authority to promulgate any substantive rules of general applicability under the Act. The IGC should follow the procedures for rulemaking. RESPONSE #79: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 8-1-202(b)(2), the duties of the director of ADEQ shall include, “The administration of permitting, licensing, certification, and grants programs deemed necessary to protect the environmental integrity of the state.” The department and the commission are also vested by statute with all the necessary authority and power to meet the requirements of § 402(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Ark. Code Ann. § 8-4-208(a). The department is also authorized to administer on behalf of the state, its own permit program for discharges into navigable waters within its jurisdiction in lieu of that of the U.S. EPA. Id. ADEQ implemented its delegated program by adopting APC&EC Regulation No. 6. Regulation No. 6 adopts by reference, 40 C.F.R. § 122.28, which grants the Director authority to issue a general permit in accordance with the provisions listed. The federal regulation states that the Director may issue a general permit by area, sources, water quality-based limits or other requirements. Therefore, pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations, it is ADEQ’s position that it has authority to issue general permits. ISSUE #80: It has been suggested that it is critical that the stormwate