Permit
Inconsistencies
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
8
57
Section
8.1
1
.
C:
EPA
refers
to
Subpart
2.3
and
2.4.

These
should
be
2.2
and
2.3,
respectively.
EPA
agrees
and
has
made
the
change.
1024
and
1028
8
60
Elimination
of
the
need
to
estimate
runoff
coefficient
of
the
site
for
pre­
and
postconstruction.
No
discussion
of
this
former
requirement
could
be
found
in
the
Permit
Fact
Sheet.
APSC
supports
elimination
of
the
requirement,
but
would
like
to
see
discussion
pertaining
to
this
decision
included
in
the
Fact
Sheet.
EPA
acknowledges
commenters
concerns
and
the
revised
permit
and
fact
sheet
do
provide
a
rationale
for
elimination
of
this
data
element.
1041
8
111
The
proposed
document
is
extremely
long.
Also,
it
has
been
organized
to
ease
federal
review
of
regulation
(
i.
e..,
CFR)
consistency,
rather
than
for
the
entity
or
person
complying.
Successful
compliance
with
the
governing
regulations
requires
establishing
adequate
understanding
for
those
responsible
for
the
regulated
activities.
To
help
achieve
this
we
recommend
keeping
the
document
to
less
than
15
pages.
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
and
has
reorganized
the
permit
to
better
highlight
permit
requirements.
1052
and
1032
8
112
The
approach
that
EPA
has
taken
in
developing
a
"
draft"
permit
and
a
"
draft
fact
sheet"
makes
it
difficult
for
the
public
to
prepare
comments
that
address
the
issues
of
concern
in
a
concise
manner 
The
NPDES
regulations
provide
for
EPA
to
develop
a
draft
permit
and
fact
sheet
and
public
notice
those
drafts.
EPA
is
following
NPDES
regulatory
provisions
in
doing
so.
It
is
not
clear
why
the
commenter
believes
the
process
might
interfere
with
the
public's
ability
to
provide
comments
in
a
concise
manner.
1057
8
114
The
fact
sheet
must
reflect,
accurately,
the
specific
intent
of
the
permit.
NAHB
agrees
with
EPA
that
the
fact
sheet
must
reflect,
accurately,
the
specific
intent
of
the
permit,
but
believes
that
this
potential
conflict
could
be
avoided
if
the
permit
were
written
in
plain
language.
 
NAHB
strongly
urges
EPA
to
write
the
permit
in
plain
language
with
enough
examples
to
make
it
understandable
to
those
who
must
comply
with
it,
so
that
a
fact
sheet
is
not
needed.
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters
concerns.
The
Agency
has
reorganized
and
reworded
this
permit
significantly
from
the
1998
CGP
in
an
attempt
to
make
the
permit
easier
to
understand.
1057
8
124
Sections
8.5
Proper
Operation
and
Maintenance,
8.10
Monitoring
and
Records
(
pp.
29­
30,
Draft
Permit),
8.12
Report
Requirements
(
pp.
3
1­
32)
should
be
revised
so
that
they
are
applicable
to
construction
sites.
Federal
regulations,
at
40
CFR
122.41
provide
for
all
permits
contain
the
standard
conditions
as
detailed
in
Appendix
G
of
the
CGP.
1057
1
Permit
Inconsistencies
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
8
138
Section
8.12
of
the
proposed
CGP
discusses
reporting
requirements.
Most
of
these
reporting
requirements
are
irrelevant
to
the
CGP.
 
With
the
exception
of
Part
H,
all
of
the
remaining
parts
of
Section
8.12
are
either
specifically
not
required
in
the
C&
D
ELG
 

Construction
and
Development
Effluent
Limitation
Guideline
(
C&
D
ELG)
of
June
24,
2002
 ,
are
addressed
elsewhere
in
the
proposed
CGP,
or
are
not
relevant
to
the
Construction
and
Development
industry.

AAR
believes
they
should
be
removed
from
the
CGP.
Appendix
G
of
the
CGP
contains
standard
NPDES
permit
provisions
that
are
required
in
all
NPDES
permits
(
40
CFR
122.41).
1058
8
141
Upsets
should
include
catastrophic
storms
or
an
unusual
sequence
of
storm
frequencies.
NAHB
urges
EPA
to
expand
section
"
8.14
Upset"
(
p.
33,
Fact
Sheet)
to
include
circumstances
related
to
weather
that
can
be
used
by
a
permittee
as
an
affirmative
defense
in
actions
brought
against
the
permittee
for
noncompliance.
...
NAHB
believes
that
if
this
section
were
modified
as
described,
professional
engineers
would
`
be
more
likely
to
be
willing
to
certify
performance
of
BMPs
to
assure
compliance
with
TMDL
wasteload
allocations.
Section
14
of
Appendix
G
is
a
standard
NPDES
permit
condition,
required
to
be
included
in
all
NPDES
permits
(
40
CFR
122.41).
1057
8
164
Section
2.1,
item
1:
We
recommend
that
'
construction
site'
prior
to
'
operator'
be
eliminated
to
correspond
to
definition
of
operator
in
Part
10.
EPA
agrees
and
has
made
the
change
1024
and
1028
8
177
 
incorrect
terminology,
but
to
the
reader,
a
facility
is
still
a
building.
Let
go
of
the
antiquated
language
from
wastewater
treatment
plant
permits
and
tailor
this
permit
to
construction
sites.
EPA
acknowledges
the
comment
and
has
clarified
as
appropriate
that
the
CGP
is
addressing
construction
site(
s)
when
using
the
term
"
facility(
ies)."
See
Subpart
1.1.
1029
2
Permit
Inconsistencies
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
8
281
Examples
of
terms
that
should
be
consistent
in
both
the
CGP
and
the
Fact
Sheet
are:
(
1)
Common
plan
of
development
(
site
over
¼
mile
apart
considered
as
separate
projects)
 
page
6,
(
2)
Final
stabilization
(
semi­
permanent
erosion
control
practices
combined
with
seeds
is
final
stabilization)
 
page
46,
(
3)

Construction
(
not
including
earth
disturbing
activities
that
are
part
of
day­
to­
day
operation)
 
page
42,
(
4)

Post
construction
use
(
earth
disturbance
for
maintenance
and
day­
to­
day
operations
does
not
require
a
CGP)
 
page
46.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
believes
that
the
final
permit
and
fact
sheet
are
consistent
for
these
four
terms.
To
the
extent
inadvertent
inconsistencies
remain,
the
text
of
the
permit
controls.
1002
and
1006
3
