monday, october 07, 2013 6:25 pm...danielle diamond; kendra kimbirauskas; chris c & kristi...

O'Reilly, Ann (OAH)

From: Sent: To:

Chris Petersen <[email protected]> Monday, October 07, 2013 6:25 PM Denise Luk; *OAH_RuleComments.OAH

Cc: Danielle Diamond; Kendra Kimbirauskas; Kathy Martin; Karen L. Hudson Subject: Re: Rebuttal Comments - Number 65-2200-30761 MPCA Proposed Feedlot Rulemaking

Denise ... nice talking to you earlier today .... you got it covered ..... xhris

Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Android-powered phone

Denise Luk <[email protected]> wrote:

> > >Denise > ________________ _

> >Denise Luk, J.D. >Licensed in Oregon and California >+ 1-415-606-0083 > > >Consultant >Socially Responsible Agricultural Project [email protected] >SRAProject.org

> > >Pro Bono CAFO Consultant >Animal Law Clinic >Center for Animal Law Studies >Lewis and Clark Law School >[email protected] >CenterForAnimaiLawStudies.org

> > >This message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.

> >

EXHIBIT

i g~ 1

FPeters

Typewritten Text

wq-rule4-03o

O'Reilly, Ann (OAH)

From: Sent: To:

Denise Luk <[email protected]> Monday, October 07, 2013 3:40 PM *OAH_RuleComments.OAH

Subject: Attachments:

65-2200-30761 MPCA Proposed Feedlot Rulemaking Rebuttal Comments in PDF format Rebuttal Comment$.pdf

Sorry, our last version was in Word. Here is the PDF version.

Thank you,

Denise

Denise Luk, J.D. Licensed in Oregon and California +1-415-606-0083

Consultant Socially Responsible Agricultural Project [email protected] SRAProject.org

Pro Bono CAFO Consultant Animal Law Clinic Center for Animal Law Studies Lewis and Clark Law School [email protected] CenterForAnimaiLawStudies.org

This message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.

EXHIBIT

i 3'5 1

October 7, 2013

Honorable Ann O'Reilly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings P.O. Box 64620

SR.AP Socially Responsible Agricultural Project

St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 SUBMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

RE: OAH Docket Number 65-2200-30761 MPCA Proposed Feedlot Rulemaking - Chapters 7020, 7001 and 7002.

Dear Judge O'Reilly:

Regarding Minn. R. part 7020.0405, subp. 4- New name/Change of Ownership, we are very concerned about the ambiguity still left in the rule. MPCA has responded that it intends to change the rule to mean that the relevant permitting authority must be notified whenever the name of the permittee of the facility changes which is reasonable and necessary. However, MPCA or the county issuing the permit must also be notified when the name of the facility itself changes.

Without notification, the agency is left unaware of key changes to the operation rendering who is responsible for the operation and which operation is at issue indeterminate and confusing.

Requiring that facility name changes be reported to the permitting agency helps to ensure accurate record keeping and more efficient regulation.

Additionally, for further clarity, the rules should explicitly distinguish between a permittee and an owner. The latest version of the proposed rule 7020.0405, subp. 4 (A) reads:

Before changing the name o{the permittee of a facility operating under a permit issued a permit under this chapter, the new owner shall submit to the permitting authority ... documentation o fthe new name and the permitting authority shall issue a permit modification reflecting the new name.

MPCA Post-Hearing Response to Public Comments, September 30, 2013, p. 2. (emphasis added).

This seems to say that when the permittee name changes, the owner of the facility, which may or may not be the same, needs to submit documentation of the change. The rest of proposed Minn. R. 7020.0405, subp. 4 (B) states in part:

Before changing ownership or control of an animal feedlot or manure storage area issued a pennit under this chapter, the new owner shall submit to the permitting authority the information required under part 7001.0190.

Rebuttal Comments- OAH Docket Number 65-2200-30761 MPCA Proposed Feedlot Rulemaking

Confusingly, in other rules, the terms permittee, owner and operator seem to be used interchangeably. For example, the rule as to "modification solely as to ownership or control" states in part that the agency must also receive:

... a binding written agreement between the permittee and the proposed transferee containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibilities and allocation of liabilities between the permittee and the proposed transferee.

Minn. R. 7001.0190, subp. 2.

The rule goes on to state requirements for the permittee/owner to transfer ownership or control. MPCA should clarify this disparity in its amended defmition of "owner" in 7020.0300, subp. 17 to say:

I i

Owner. "Owner" means all persons having or proposing to have possession, control, or title to an animal feedlot or manure storage area. An owner may or may not be the same person or entity as the permittee.

The agency needs to distinguish who is an owner, operator and permittee because the responsible party under the permit needs to be identifiable.

Respectfully Submitted,

Denise Luk Consultant Socially Responsible Agricultural Project


O'Reilly, Ann (OAH)

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject: Attachments:

Denise

Denise Luk, J.D. Licensed in Oregon and California + 1-415-606-0083

Consultant

Denise Luk <[email protected]> Monday, October 07, 2013 3:38 PM *OAH_RuleComments.OAH Danielle Diamond; Kendra Kimbirauskas; Chris C & Kristi Petersen; Kathy Martin; Karen L. Hudson Rebuttal Comments- Number 65-2200-30761 MPCA Proposed Feedlot Rulemaking Rebuttal Comments.docx

Socially Responsible Agricultural Project [email protected] SRAProject.org

Pro Bono CAFO Consultant Animal Law Clinic Center for Animal Law Studies Lewis and Clark Law School [email protected] CenterForAnimaiLawStudies.org

This message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.

EXHIBIT

I 3(? 1

October 7, 2013

Honorable Ann O'Reilly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings P.O. Box 64620

S:RAP Socially Responsible Agricultural Project

St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 SUBMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

RE: OAH Docket Number 65-2200-30761 MPCA Proposed Feedlot Rulemaking- Chapters 7020, 7001 and 7002.


Regarding Minn. R. part 7020.0405, subp. 4- New name/Change of Ownership, we are very concerned about the ambiguity still left in the rule. MPCA has responded that it intends to change the rule to mean that the relevant permitting authority must be notified whenever the name of the permittee of the facility changes which is reasonable and necessary. However, MPCA or the county issuing the permit must also be notified when the name of the facility itself changes.

Without notification, the agency is left unaware of key changes to the operation rendering who is responsible for the operation and which operation is at issue indeterminate and confusing.

Requiring that facility name changes be reported to the permitting agency helps to ensure accurate record keeping and more efficient regulation.

Additionally, for further clarity, the rules should explicitly distinguish between a permittee and an owner. The latest version of the proposed rule 7020.0405, subp. 4 (A) reads:

Before changing the name ofthe permittee of a facility operating under a permit issued a permit under this chapter, the new owner shall submit to the permitting authority ... documentation o fthe new name and the permitting authority shall issue a permit modification reflecting the new name.

MPCA Post-Hearing Response to Public Comments, September 30, 2013, p. 2. (emphasis added).

This seems to say that when the permittee name changes, the owner of the facility, which may or may not be the same, needs to submit documentation of the change. The rest of proposed Minn. R. 7020.0405, subp. 4 (B) states in part:

Before changing ownership or control of an animal feedlot or manure storage area issued a permit under this chapter, the new owner shall submit to the permitting authority the information required under part 7001.0190.


Confusingly, in other rules, the terms permittee, owner and operator seem to be used interchangeably. For example, the rule as to "modification solely as to ownership or control" states in part that the agency must also receive:

... a binding written agreement between the permittee and the proposed transferee containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibilities and allocation of liabilities between the permittee and the proposed transferee.

Minn~ R. 7001.0190, subp. 2.

The rule goes on to state requirements for the permittee/owner to transfer ownership or control. MPCA should clarify this disparity in its amended definition of "owner" in 7020.0300, subp. 17 to say:

Owner. "Owner" means all persons having or proposing to have possession, control, or title to an animal feedlot or manure storage area. An owner may or may not be the same person or entity as the permittee.

The agency needs to distinguish who is an owner, operator and permittee because the responsible party under the permit needs to be identifiable.


Denise Luk: Consultant Socially Responsible Agricultural Project


O'Reilly, Ann (OAH)

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Steve Olson <[email protected]> Monday, October 07, 2013 3:41 PM *OAH_RuleComments.OAH Docket #65-2200-30761 (feedlots) 7020 Rebuttal Comments - MTGA 10-7 -13.pdf

Attached are rebuttal comments regarding Docket #65-2200-30761 (feedlots).

Please contact me with questions.

Sincerely, Steve

A Note my email address has changed to: [email protected]

Steven H. Olson Executive Director Minnesota Turkey Growers Association (www.MinnesotaTurkey.com)

108 Marty Dr. Buffalo, MN 55313

Ph: 763.682.2171 Fax: 763.682.5546

Connect with us:

http :1/www. face book.com/M in nesota Turkey

http://www.twitter.com/MinnesotaTurkey

Yllu8 http://www.youtube.com/MinnesotaTurkey

UnkediJII http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steve-olson/5/774/81a

1

EXHIBIT

3'1

Minnesota Turkey Growers Association

October 7, 2013

Judge Ann C. O'Reilly Office of Administrative Hearings 600 North Robert St. P.O. Box 64620 St. Paul, MN 55164-0620

Re: Docket #65-2200-30761 (feedlots)


108 Marty Drive Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 763-682-2171 Fax: 763-682-5546 Minnesotaturkev.com

SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]

The Minnesota Turkey Growers Association (MTGA) submits the following rebuttal comments in the above-referenced rulemaking following the public hearing held on September 9, 2013, as provided under the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act.

There is a great deal of confusion over what the proposed SDS permit will and will not allow in terms of discharging a pollutant into waters of the state. The MPCA has taken the position that the SDS permit will prohibit all discharges, and they have also taken the position the SDS permit will allow discharges. Before this proposed rule takes effect, this issue needs to be resolved. The regulated community cannot operate under a system in which the regulatory Agency takes two opposing positions. The following is a nonexhaustive list of the Agency's contradictory positions on this issue during this rulemaking process:

Specific examples where the Agency prohibits any discharge under an SDS:

1. Proposed change 59, -part 7020.2003, subpart 1 (SONAR, page 53). "Subpart 1. Subsurface discharges from animal feedlots and manure storage areas. No person shall discharge animal manure, manure-contaminated runoff, or process wastewater from any animal feedlot, including CAPOs a CAFO, or manure storage area is prohibited from flowiag into a sinkhole, fractured bedrock, well, surface tile intake, mine, er quarry, or other direct conduits to groundwater."

2. In the Fact Sheet distributed by the MPCA beginning in November 2011, the Agency states in the second paragraph ''Non-permitted CAPOs will be held to a zero discharge standard." Later in the same document, the Agency states "A State Disposal System (SDS) is under development. It will provide environmental protection similar to the current NPDES general permit, with several notable differences: ... No facility discharge under any condition (no 25-year, 24-hour storm exemption)." And finally, in the Issue and Answers section of the document, the answer to the question "Does having an SDS permit automatically certify a CAFO as a 'no potential to discharge' begins with the

Dedicated to fostering a successful Minnesota turkey industry and its ability to make positive contributions to consumers, the economy, the environment and its members.

I.

statement "No; while an SDS is a zero discharge permit ... " (emphasis added). Source: MPCA Fact Sheet "State Disposal System permit for large feedlots - Water Quality/Feedlots 3.48 November, 2011, updated August 2012 and April 2013.

3. The MPCA held meetings in Mankato, Minnesota on September 4, 2012 and in Waite Park, Minnesota, on September 7, 2012, to release the draft of the proposed 7020 changes, to answer questions from the public, and to generally discuss the MPCA feedlot rule revision process. In the power point presentation given by the Agency, the fourth slide on the second page states that "NPDES/SDS Permits" are "Required for CAPOs that discharge to Waters of the U.S." The only discharge allowed under this permit is for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The next slide (number 5 on page 2) states: "SDS Permits" are "Required for feedlots with more than 1,000 AU that do not discharge" (emphasis original).

Specific examples where the Agency appears to allow a discharge under an SDS:

1. SONAR, page 5, when reviewing the period 1970s to 1998, the Agency states: "During this time, Minn. R. ch. 7020 required an owner proposing to construct a large feedlot to apply for a "Certificate of Compliance" for the construction of the facility, but not for any type of operating permit, such as an NPDES/SDS or SDS permit, unless the facility was proposing to have a discharge." (Emphasis added).

2. SONAR, page 6. "The MPCA also finds that it would be reasonable to require permits for facilities that discharge of waters of the state." (Emphasis added).

3. SONAR, page 7. "Discharges are allowed under both state and federal law in Minn. R. 7053.0305, subp. 2, and 40 CPR 412.13, respectively (see Exhibits 3 and 4), ifthose discharges occur when precipitation exceeds a design storm equal to a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the facility's location, as long as the affected facility was in compliance with the permit." (Emphasis added).

4. SONAR, page 19. "It is reasonable to make clear in establishing this exemption that state permits are still required for CAPOs before those facilities discharge ... " (emphasis added).

5. SONAR, page 27. "Although the MPCA may authorize discharges to waters of the state under its permits, the MPCA may not use a state permit to authorize a discharge from a CAPO to waters of the United States." (Emphasis added).

6. Proposed change 60, -part 7020.2003, subpart 2 (C), (SONAR, pages 53-54). "Subpart 2. CAPOs and faeilities animal feedlots with 1,000 animal units or more. (C.) No discharge shall be allowed from a CAPO or an animal feedlot capable of holding 1,000 animal units or more or a manure storage area capable of holding the manure produced by 1.000 animal units or more into waters of the state unless the animal feedlot

or manure storage area has an SDS permit authorizing the discharge," (emphasis original).

Before the proposed rule is finalized, we request the Agency clear up this confusion in their written materials and among Agency personnel so that the regulated community and members of the public clearly understand what is allowed under the proposed SDS permit.

Respectfully submitted,

ftaL Steve Olson Executive Director Minnesota Turkey Growers Association

O'Reilly, Ann (OAH)

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

[email protected] Monday, October 07, 2013 3:41 PM *OAH_RuleComments.OAH Docket #65-2200-30761 (feedlots) 7020 Rebuttal Comments-CEAM 10-7-13.pdf

Attached are rebuttal comments regarding Docket #65-2200-30761 (feedlots).

Please contact me with questions.

Sincerely, Steve

Steven H. Olson Executive Director Chicken & Egg Association of Minnesota (CEAM) --formerly known as Broiler & Egg Association ofMN 108 Marty Dr. Buffalo, MN 55313

Ph: 763.682.2171

1

EXHIBIT

j ?~

I i

SOTA

Chicken & Egg Association ofMinnesota

108 Marty Drive • Buffalo, Minnesota 55313-9338 • 763.682.2171 • Fax 763.682.5546 [email protected] • www.mnchicken.org

October 7, 2013

Judge Ann C. O'Reilly SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected] Office of Administrative Hearings 600 North Robert St. P.O. Box 64620 St. Paul, MN 55164-0620



The Chicken & Egg Association ofMN (CEAM) submits the following rebuttal comments in the above-referenced rulemaking following the public hearing held on September 9, 2013, as provided under the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act.

There is a great deal of confusion over what the proposed SDS permit will and will not allow in terms of discharging a pollutant into waters of the state. The MPCA has taken the position that the SDS permit will prohibit all discharges, and they have also taken the position the SDS permit will allow discharges. Before this proposed rule takes effect, this issue needs to be resolved. The regulated community cannot operate under a system in which the regulatory Agency takes two opposing positions. The following is a nonexhaustive list of the Agency's contradictory positions on this issue during this rulemaking process:


1. Proposed change 59,- part 7020.2003, subpart 1 (SONAR, page 53). "Subpart 1. Subsurface discharges from animal feedlots and manure storage areas. No person shall discharge animal manure, manure-contaminated runoff, or process wastewater from any animal feedlot, including CAFOs a CAPO, or manure storage area is prohibited from flov1iHg into a sinkhole, fractured bedrock, well, surface tile intake, mine, er quarry, or other direct conduits to groundwater."

2. In the Fact Sheet distributed by the MPCA beginning in November 2011, the Agency states in the second paragraph "Non-permitted CAPOs will be held to a zero discharge standard." Later in the same document, the Agency states "A State Disposal System (SDS) is under development. It will provide environmental protection similar to the

I '

current NPDES general permit, with several notable differences: ... No facility discharge under any condition (no 25-year, 24-hour storm exemption)." And finally, in the Issue and Answers section of the document, the answer to the question "Does having an SDS permit automatically certify a CAPO as a 'no potential to discharge' begins with the statement "No; while an SDS is a zero discharge permit ... " (emphasis added). Source: MPCA Fact Sheet "State Disposal System permit for large feedlots- Water Quality/Feedlots 3.48 November, 2011, updated August 2012 andApri/2013.

3. The MPCA held meetings in Mankato, Minnesota on September 4, 2012 and in Waite Park, Minnesota, on September 7, 2012, to release the draft of the proposed 7020 changes, to answer questions from the public, and to generally discuss the MPCA feedlot rule revision process. In the power point presentation given by the Agency, the fourth slide on the second page states that "NPDES/SDS Permits" are "Required for CAPOs that discharge to Waters of the U.S." The only discharge allowed under this permit is for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The next slide (number 5 on page 2) states: "SDS Permits" are "Required for feedlots with more than 1,000 AU that do not discharge" (emphasis original).


1. SONAR, page 5, when reviewing the period 1970s to 1998, the Agency states: "During this time, Minn. R. ch. 7020 required an owner proposing to construct a large feedlot to apply for a "Certificate of Compliance" for the construction ofthe facility, but not for any type of operating permit, such as an NPDES/SDS or SDS permit, unless the facility was proposing to have a discharge." (Emphasis added).

2. SONAR, page 6. "The MPCA also finds that it would be reasonable to require permits for facilities that discharge of waters of the state." (Emphasis added).

3. SONAR, page 7. "Discharges are allowed under both state and federal law in Minn. R. 7053.0305, subp. 2, and 40 CPR 412.13, respectively (see Exhibits 3 and 4), if those discharges occur when precipitation exceeds a design storm equal to a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the facility's location, as long as the affected facility was in compliance with the permit." (Emphasis added).

4. SONAR, page 19. "It is reasonable to make clear in establishing this exemption that state permits are still required for CAPOs before those facilities discharge ... " (emphasis added).

5. SONAR, page 27. "Although the MPCA may authorize discharges to waters of the state under its permits, the MPCA may not use a state permit to authorize a discharge from a CAPO to waters of the United States." (Emphasis added).

6. Proposed change 60, -part 7020.2003, subpart 2 (C), (SONAR, pages 53-54). "Subpart 2. CAPOs and faeilities animal feedlots with 1,000 animal units or more. (C.)

! 1

No discharge shall be allowed from a CAFO or an animal feedlot capable of holding 1,000 animal units or more or a manure storage area capable of holding the manure produced by 1,000 animal units or more into waters of the state unless the animal feedlot or manure storage area has an SDS permit authorizing the discharge," (emphasis original).



ftaL Steve Olson Executive Director Chicken & Egg Association of MN

O'Reilly, Ann (OAH)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Kim Oakes Executive Secretary

Kim Oakes <[email protected]> Monday, October 07, 2013 3:05 PM

*OAH_RuleComments.OAH

Amber Hanson; Chris Radatz; Kevin Paap

MFBF Rebuttal Comments MFBF Rebuttal Comments.doc

Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation Office: 651.768.2111 Cell: 612.298.7728

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message, and please delete it from your computer.

EXHIBIT

~~ 1

October 7, 2013

Judge Ann C. O'Reilly Office of Administrative Hearings 600 North Robert St. P.O. Box 64620 St. Paul, MN 55164-0620



SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]

The Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation (MFBF) submits the following rebuttal comments in the above-referenced rulemaking following the public hearing held on September 9, 2013, as provided under the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act.

There is a great deal of confusion over what the proposed SDS permit will and will not allow in terms of discharging a pollutant into waters of the state. The MPCA has taken the position that the SDS permit will prohibit all discharges, and they have also taken the position the SDS permit will allow discharges. Before this proposed rule takes effect, this issue needs to be resolved. The regulated community cannot operate under a system in which the regulatory Agency takes two opposing positions. The following is a non-exhaustive list of the Agency's contradictory positions on this issue during this rulemaking process:


1. Proposed change 59, -part 7020.2003, subpart 1 (SONAR, page 53). "Subpart 1: Subsurface discharges from animal feedlots and manure storage areas. No person shall discharge animal manure, manure-contaminated runoff, or process wastewater from any animal feedlot, including Ci\:FOs a CAFO, or manure storage area is prohibited from flm:ving into a sinkhole, fractured bedrock, well, surface tile intake, mine, er quarry, or other direct conduits to groundwater."

2. In the Fact Sheet distributed by the MPCA beginning in November 2011, the Agency states in the second paragraph "Non-permitted CAFOs will be held to a zero discharge standard." Later in the same document, the Agency states "A State Disposal System (SDS) is under development. It will provide environmental protection similar to the current NPDES general permit, with several notable differences: ... No facility discharge under any condition (no 25-year, 24-hour storm exemption)." And finally, in the Issue and Answers section of the document, the answer to the question "Does having an SDS permit automatically certify a CAFO as a 'no potential to discharge' begins with the statement "No; while an SDS is a zero discharge permit ... " (emphasis added). Source: MPCA Fact Sheet "State Disposal System permit for large feedlotsWater Quality/Feedlots 3.48 November, 2011, updated August 2012 and April 2013.

3. The MPCA held meetings in Mankato, Minnesota on September 4, 2012 and in Waite Park, Minnesota, on September 7, 2012, to release the draft of the proposed 7020 changes, to answer questions from the public, and to generally discuss the MPCA feedlot rule revision process. In the power point presentation given by the Agency, the fourth slide on the second page states that "NPDES/SDS Permits" are "Required for CAFOs that discharge to Waters of the U.S." The only discharge allowed under this permit is for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The next slide (number 5 on page 2) states: "SDS Permits" are "Required for feedlots with more than 1,000 AU that do not discharge" (emphasis original).


1. SONAR, page 5, when reviewing the period 1970s to 1998, the Agency states: "During this time, Minn. R. ch. 7020 required an owner proposing to construct a large feedlot to apply for a "Certificate of Compliance" for the construction of the facility, but not for any type of operating permit, such as an NPDES/SDS or SDS permit, unless the facility was proposing to have a discharge." (Emphasis added).

2. SONAR, page 6. "The MPCA also fmds that it would be reasonable to require permits for facilities that discharge of waters ofthe state." (Emphasis added).

3. SONAR, page 7. "Discharges are allowed under both state and federal law in Minn. R. 7053.0305, subp. 2, and 40 CFR 412.13, respectively (see Exhibits 3 and 4), ifthose discharges occur when precipitation exceeds a design storm equal to a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the facility's location, as long as the affected facility was in compliance with the permit." (Emphasis added) .

. 4. SONAR, page 19. "It is reasonable to make clear in establishing this exemption that state · permits are still required for CAFOs before those facilities discharge ... " (emphasis added).

5. SONAR, page 27. "Although the MPCA may authorize discharges to waters of the state under its permits, the MPCA may not use a state permit to authorize a discharge from a CAFO to waters ofthe United States." (Emphasis added).

2

6. Proposed change 60, -part 7020.2003, subpart 2 (C), (SONAR, pages 53-54). "Subpart 2. CAFOs and facilities animal feedlots with 1,000 animal units or more. (C.) No discharge shall be allowed from a CAFO or an animal feedlot capable of holding 1,000 animal units or more or a manure storage area capable of holding the manure produced by 1,000 animal units or more into waters of the state unless the animal feedlot or manure storage area has an SDS permit authorizing the discharge," (emphasis original).



KevinPaap President Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation

3

I '

O'Reilly, Ann {OAH)

From: Sent: To:

Molloy, Kevin (MPCA) Monday, October 07, 2013 3:03 PM *OAH_RuleComments.OAH

Subject: MPCA's Post-Hearing Final (Rebuttal) Response Regarding Proposed Feedlot Rule Amendments - OAH DOCKET NO. 65-2200-30761

Attachments: 2013-100713_MPCA Final (Rebuttal) Comments_Feedlot Rulemaking.pdf

Judge O'Reilly,

Attached please find a PDF version of the MPCA's Post-Hearing Final (Rebuttal) Response regarding the MPCA's Proposed Feedlot Rule Amendments. A hard (signed) copy will also be delivered to your office later this afternoon.

Please let me know if you have any associated questions.

Respectfully,

Kevin Molloy Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Resource Management & Assistance Division 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Office: 651-757-2577; FAX: 651/297-8676 Email: [email protected] http://www.pca.state.mn.us

EXHIBIT

1 40

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North J St. Paul, Minnesota 551.55-4194 1 651-296-6300

October 7, 2013

Administrative Law Judge Ann C. O'Reilly Office of Administrative Hearings P.O. Box 64620 600 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55164-0620

RE: Final Response for Proposed Amendments to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020, Governing Animal Feedlots, Chapter 7001, Governing Permits and Certifications, and Chapter 7002, Governing Permit Fees (OAH Docket No. 65-2200-30761; Governor's Office Tracking No. AR 1057)


Enclosed please find the Final Response from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency {MPCA) for the proposed rule amendments referenced above. The Final Response, prepared for the five working-day rebuttal comment period that ends on October 7, 2013, addresses the comments submitted during the post-hearing comment period that ended on September 30, 2013. More specifically, it responds to new information and comments submitted by interested parties during the post-hearing comment period, which the MPCA did not already address in its September 30, 2013, post-hearing comment letter.

If you have questions regarding the enclosed Final Response or the content of the proposed rule amendments, please contact Kim Brynildson at 651-757-2250 or [email protected]. If you have questions regarding the rulemaking procedures followed for this rulemaking, please contact Kevin Molloy at 651-757-2577 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Kevin Molloy Rules Coordinator Resource Management and Assistance Division

KM:Id

Enclosure

State of Minnesota Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

In the Matter of Proposed Amendments to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020, Governing Animal Feedlots, Chapter 7001, Governing Permits and Certifications, and Chapter 7002, Governing Permit Fees (OAH Docket No. 65-2200-30761; Governor's Office Tracking No. AR 1057)

I. Introduction

Final Post-Hearing Response to Public Comments

(Rebuttal)

October 7, 2013

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Agency or MPCA) published its Dual Notice of Intent to Adopt Proposed Amendments to Minn. R. chs. 7001, 7002, and 7020, and hold a Public Hearing, if required, together with the proposed amendments in the Minnesota State Register on July 22, 2013 (38 SR 90).

The MPCA presented information to demonstrate that the proposed amendments are necessary and reasonable in the associated Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) and the supporting exhibits. The MPCA also presented additional information during the public hearing, which was held on September 9, 2013, in St. Paul and simultaneously at six ofthe MPCA's Regional Offices via interactive videoconferencing and in its Post-Hearing Response to Public Comments (Response) submitted to Administrative Law Judge Ann O'Reilly on September 30, 2013.

The remainder of this document contains the MPCA's Final Response to Public Comments (Final Response). It specifically responds to the new comments and information received during the posthearing comment period. This Final Response also identifies those comments received that were repetitive with those previously addressed by the Agency in its Response. In those instances, the reader is referred to the appropriate section of the Response.

II. Comments Received by the Office of Administrative Hearings from Interested Parties During Post-Hearing Comment Period and MPCA's Response

The following interested parties submitted comments during the post-hearing comment period.

A. Letter from David Preisler, Executive Director, Minnesota Pork Producers Association, received September 27, 2013;

B. Letter from Dar Giess, President, Minnesota State Cattlemen's Association, received September 27, 2013;

C. Identical comment letters from:

• Steve Olson, Executive Director, Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, received September 30, 2013;

• Steve Olson, Executive Director, Chicken and Egg Association of Minnesota, received September 30, 2013; and

1

• Letter from Kevin Paap, President, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, received September 30, 2013;

D. Letter from Patrick Lunemann, President, Minnesota Milk Producers Association, received September 18, 2013;

E. Letter from Bobby King, Land Stewardship Project, and Thorn Petersen, Minnesota Farmers Union, received September 30, 2013;

F. Letter from Denise Luk, Consultant, Socially Responsible Agricultural Project, received September 30, 2013 (letter is co-signed by members of the following: Socially Responsible Agricultural Project, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection, and the Center for Food Safety; and

G. Letter from Chris Peterson, Pork Producer, received September 27, 2013.

The MPCA has reviewed the comments and have prepared the following responses.

A. David Preisler, Executive Director, Minnesota Pork Producers Association

Comment A-1. The commenter suggests using a different website reference [7020.0205, items E and F]

Response A-1. MPCA proposed this change. See Response, Part II, A (pg. 1).

Comment A-2. The commenter is concerned about the proposed changes to the definition of owner and presents a new scenario regarding a producer who establishes a "testamentary trust." The commenter is concerned that the trustee would need to be a permittee. [7020.0300, subpart 17]

Response A-2. See Response, Part IV, 3-2 (pg. 6). The MPCA does not consider persons who may come into possession of a feedlot as the result of future circumstances that are beyond their control (i.e., bank with mortgage, person with inchoate future interest such as a heir or trustee of a trust) to be a person who "proposes to have possession, control or title to an animal feedlot ... ". The key is timing. A person who merely has a security interest or other non-possessory future interest in a feedlot does not propose to have possession, control or title at the time of the permit application. However, a person who has a binding contract with the applicant to assume ownership after the permit is issued does propose to have possession, control or title at the time of the permit application.

Comment A-3. Commenter does not believe that a definition for waters of the United States should be included in the revised rules. [7020.0300, subpart 27]

Response A-3. See Response, Part IV, 3-3 (pg. 6).

Comment A-4. Commenter suggests a modification to the proposed rule regarding change of name. [7020.0405, subpart 4]

Response A-4. MPCA proposed this change in Response, Part II, B (pg. 2).

Comment A-5. Commenter believes that any regulation for carcass disposal is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Animal Health and the MPCA has no jurisdiction regarding this issue. The commenter also

2

states that the MPCA has not provided any proof that improper disposal of carcasses can create a pollution hazard to surface or groundwater. [7020.0504, subpart 4]

Response A-5. The MPCA has previously responded to the assertion regarding its jurisdiction. By granting the Board of Animal Health .primary jurisdiction over management of animal mortalities, the legislature did not abrogate the MPCA's authority to protect ground and surface water from pollution. See Response, Part IV, 3-12 (page 10). The MPCA also disagrees with the assertion that MPCA did not provide any proof that improper disposal of carcasses can create a pollution hazard to surface or groundwater. The MPCA submitted a slide-show with testimony that illustrated why carcass disposal could cause groundwater and surface water pollution (see Exhibit 15 and pages 40- 50 of the rule hearing transcript). Apart from the fact that the pollutants of concern will be generated by decomposing carcasses, there is no difference between this type of pollution emergency event and a manure release.

Comment A-6. Commenter believes that any change to a feedlot that does not increase the number of animal units should not require a modification of the permit. The commenter states that the MPCA is "impermissibly incorporation (sic) NPDES requirements into modification of an SDS." The commenter also raises question with regard to how permit modifications could impact implementation of the feedlot owner's manure management plan (MMP). [7020.0300, subpart 14]

Response A-6. The MPCA has previously responded with its rationale with regard to why modifications other than expansions should be documented through permit amendments, and how MMP modifications will be affected. See Response item IV, 3-4 (page 7). The MPCA notes further that minor permit amendments do not require public notice and are generally approved within two weeks of receiving the necessary information. The MPCA has explained that it is clarifying the rule to reflect that NPDES permits always have included any state requirements that are applicable. The fact that a producer receives a federal permit does not abrogate state requirements.

With regard to MMPs, the MPCA notes that the MMP plan has been approved by the MPCA with the issuance of the permit and must include sufficient acreage to apply manure generated at the feedlot according to applicable rules and regulations. In the event that the owner wishes to add an additional parcel of land to the MMP, any delay resulting from the approval process should be minimal because the owner already has access to sufficient acreage and can continue to use that acreage for application of manure until the new acreage is approved. As noted in the previous comment response, for SDS permits not subject to federal requirements, no public notice of changes to manure management acreage is mandated and the MPCA believes that most changes of this nature would be handled as minor permit amendments.

Comment A-7. The commenter is concerned with the MPCA's use of animal capacity, rather than animal number in the proposed rule. [7020.0405]

Response A-7. Although the proposed revisions to Minn. R. ch. 7020 do not include any changes to the use ofthe term "animal capacity", the MPCA would like to refer the commenter and others to Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living v. Dodge County Board of Commissioners, A04-1287, 694 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. App. 04/12/05). www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0504/opa041287-0412.htm. In this case, the judge affirmed the MPCA's use ofthe term animal capacity. See Response, Part IV, 3-9 (pg. 9).

Comment A-8. Commenter is opposed to linking NPDES and SDS permits. [7020.0405, subpart 1]

Response A-8. See Response, Part IV, 3-7 and 3-8 (pg. 8).

3

Comment A-9. The commenter is concerned that the proposed rule revisions will extend deadlines for MPCA actions. [7020.0505, subpart 2]

Response A-9. See Response, Part IV, 3-11 (pg. 10).

In his comment, Mr. Preisler makes note of the "unfortunate circumstances created by Agency delay" in regard to the permitting process that John Zimmerman underwent for his turkey operation. Mr. Zimmerman provided testimony during the September 9, 2013 hearing for the proposed rule revision (see pages 92- 96 of the hearing transcript) about the permitting process he underwent for the operation of a manure gasification system on his turkey farm. The gasification system involves the burning of wood and manure to generate a gas that can be used to provide a fuel source on his farm.

In response to the testimony and comment, the MPCA reviewed its records with regard to this particular permit application. Based on this review, the MPCA believes that the delays with regard to the permitting of the gasification system were a result, in large part, of Mr. Zimmerman's failure to include all the required information in his permit application and to provide additional information in a timely manner after the MPCA requested it. The MPCA's files are available for those who request access.

As the MPCA has noted, the MPCA views the permit application timeline as protective ofthe producer's interest in getting a facility operational at a predictable time. Delays in the permitting process are often a result, in the MPCA's experience, of delays from applicants and their representatives and not a result of MPCA staff failure to respond.

B. Letter from Dar Giess, President, Minnesota State Cattlemen's Association

Comment B-1. The commenter is concerned about the proposed revision to the pasture definition. The commenter argues that the MPCA does not support grazing on crop residue and that any supplemental feeding means that the pastl.lre definition does not apply. [7020.0300, subpart 18]

Response B-1. The MPCA addresses this comment in Response, Part V, 6-1 (pg. 25). The MPCA disagrees with the commenter's characterization of the pasture definition. The MPCA discussed the use of postharvest fields to graze cattle on page 25 of the SONAR, which states:

Traditional low-density foraging maintains vegetative cover as cattle move through the field to find standing forage, and poses no danger of excess manure deposition in excess of agronomic needs such that intensive management practices, such as scraping and removal of manure, would be required to avoid buildup of soil nutrient. Scraping and removal of manure is typical of traditional high-density open-lot feedlots- not pastures- and is best managed under a permit requiring a manure management plan that includes soil and manure testing. So long as the livestock are not being sustained on feed brought to the site throughout the winter season, occasional supplemental feeding should have a minimal environmental impact and should not result in the development of "feedlot conditions" such as lack of vegetative cover or excessive manure deposition beyond the immediate vicinity of the temporary supplemental feeding or watering devices.

As this discussion shows, the MPCA supports allowing cattle to graze on crop residue, and occasional supplemental feeding is not prohibited under the proposed pasture definition.

4

Comment B-2. Commenter is concerned that the proposed amendment to Minn. R. 7020.2005 is inconsistent with the report of the Technical Workgroup convened by the MPCA at the request of the 2000 legislature. [7020.2005]

Response B-2.

During the 2000 legislative session, a bill was passed (Minn. Session Laws, Chapter 435 H.F. No. 3692 (2000)) requiring the MPCA to convene a "workgroup" to review and propose design standards for liquid manure storage areas (LMSAs) in the Karst region. This workgroup did not include any regulators, members of the general public, or representatives of environmental groups. The workgroup did not build from the existing MPCA design standards, but rather took a "fresh look" at standards for construction of LMSAs in the Karst region. In December of 2000, without any public notice or comment, this group reported its findings to the legislature. This report, entitled Recommendations of the Technical Workgroup: Liquid Manure Storage in Karst Region, has been commonly termed "Alternative Standards" as referred to by the commenter. It can be found on the MPCA website at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=3627.

The commenter references changes to Minn. Rule 7020.2005 in his comments. However, as identified in the SONAR, the proposed changes to this section of the rule are simply grammatical in nature (reordering and readability) and do not change the existing requirements applicable to setbacks for manure storage areas to sinkholes. Although the commenter implies that these standards should be changed to reflect the recommendations of the workgroup, there is no need to do so because the Alternative Standards also recommended a 300 foot setback to sinkholes.

In the event that the commenter was suggesting that the Alternative Standards as a whole be incorporated into the Rule at this time, the MPCA offers the following response. First, this rulemaking was promulgated to address statutory changes, eliminate obsolete language, and clarify existing rule provisions. Adoption of the Alternative Standards into this rule would be highly controversial and require significant technical review, and would be a "significant change" in the scope of this rule. For this reason, the MPCA declines to expand this rule making in this way. As the commenter notes, the MPCA is aware of the existence of the report and technical recommendations, and has indicated in its fact sheets that the Alternative Standards can be used to aid in the design and construction of LMSAs in Minnesota's karst region. However, many ofthese Alternative Standards have never been incorporated into the 7020 rules; therefore, they are not legally binding. The MPCA is not averse to utilizing Alternative Standards provided that the requirements of Minn. Rule ch. 7020, which has gone through rulemaking, are also met, or a variance is obtained.

C. Identical comment letters from Steve Olson, Executive Director, Minnesota Turkey Growers Association and Chicken and Egg Association of Minnesota, and Kevin Paap, President, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation

The Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, the Chicken and Egg Association of Minnesota and the Minnesota Farm Bureau ("producers") submitted a letter in which they argued that there is no statutory authority for the MPCA to require "State Disposal System" permits for livestock farms over 1,000 units. In support of this argument, the producer groups note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) authority under the Clean Water Act to issue NPDES permits to CAFOs that have not discharged was curtailed through a series of federal court decisions and that, as a result, current federal rule requires only that a CAFO hold an NPDES permit when it actually discharges (rather than has the potential to discharge). The producer groups then state that, "accordingly," when the Minnesota Legislature enacted language that provided "[t]he agency must issue national pollutant discharge

5

elimination system permit for feedlots only as required by federal law," the Legislature's intent was to conform "Minnesota's feedlot permitting rules" to the federal court ruling. The producer groups argue that by keeping the existing rule requirement that farms of a certain size obtain an SDS permit, the MPCA is "wading into the legislative policy arena." The producer groups argue that "ifthe legislature had wanted the Agency to require a state discharge permit in the form of an SDS permit for nondischarging operations over 1,000 animal units, they could have easily provided that directive to the Agency."

Response C.

1. The SDS permit based on facility size is an existing state rule requirement that is not being amended.

As the producers have admitted in their letter, the MPCA is not changing the requirement in the existing rule for feedlot operators to obtain an SDS permit if they are of a certain size. The proposed amendment to the existing language does not affect the SDS permit requirement:

31. Proposed Change- part 7020.0405, subpart 1. Item B

B. l:IR!ess •"e6fl:li.''e9 te Bf3f3/.y fer B tae."''''!it l:IREier iteFR A, an SDS permit l:IREier t:Re fellewlRfJ ceREiitieRs: for the construction. expansion. modification. or operation of an animal feedlot or manure storage area:

(1) the ceRstr~:~ctieR eREI etaerstleR ef BR BRiFRBI feeEI/et er FRBRI:I.o:e sterBfJe s.o:es thBt hBS i:JeeR EieFReRSt."Btefi Ret te FReet the co'=iteriB Jfer 0\FQ BREi is CBf3BB!e ef heiEilRfJ 1,000 er FRe.o:e BRiFRBII:IRits er tRe FRBRI:Ire weEI~:~ceEI I:Jy 1,000 er FRere BRiFRB! l:IRits; that is capable of holding, or will be capable of holding, 1,000 or more animal units or the manure produced bv 1.000 or more animal units: ...

As the language shows, the existing rule provided that, unless an NPDES permit was obtained, an SDS permit was required under the existing rule for facilities that were capable of holding 1,000 animal units or more. This requirement is not being amended, and thus is not properly before the Administrative Law Judge (AU) for consideration as part of this rulemaking. See Minn. R. 1400.2070, subp. 1. ("If an agency is amending existing rules, the agency need not demonstrate the need for a reasonableness of the existing rules not affected by the proposed amendments.") As noted in the SONAR:

The MPCA does not propose to change the requirement to obtain an SDS permit for facilities with 1,000 animal units or more. This is reasonable for a variety of reasons, including that it is an administrative requirement of long standing and one that is generally consistent with historic state and federal permitting practices. The permitting requirement is consistent with Minn. Stat. § 1160.04 with regard to which facilities need environmental review, and it is consistent with statements made to the legislature by the MPCA when the statutory permitting changes were adopted in 2011. The MPCA believes that having a "clear line" results in administrative clarity for both the MPCA and the regulated community.

The agency then summarized, for the information of the interested persons, the justifications offered in 1999, when the SDS permit requirement was first adopted. While the producer groups proclaim these justifications to be "inadequate," the justifications were apparently adequate to support the adoption of

6

I ~

the SDS permit requirement for facilities based on size in 1999. Moreover, as noted in the SONAR, the jurisdictional challenges with regard to NPDES permits were known at the time the 2000 feedlot rule was adopted. The 1999 SONAR specifically identified (on pages 50 and 94) that the State would require the SDS permit even if the NPDES permit was found not to be necessary. The MPCA sees no need to change this longstanding position.

2. The legislature has not directed the MPCA to eliminate the SDS permit, and has in fact directed the MPCA to issue that permit to feedlots with an extended term.

The producers point out that, in 2011, the legislature changed a statute that directed the MPCA to issue NPDES permits to feedlots with 1,000 animal units or more to require the MPCA to issue NPDES permits "only as required by federal law." Minn. Stat.§ 116.07, subd. 7c. However, the producers admit that "the 2011 legislation did not include a specific reference to the Agency's authority to require an SDS permit based on size." Producer comment p. 3. Despite this, the producers now ask for a conclusion that by restricting the MPCA to federal law with regard to when NPDES permits are required (i.e., to "post-discharge permits"), the legislature also intended to strip the MPCA's authority to issue any feedlot permits based on size, in particular the existing rule requirement for facilities with more than 1,000 animal units to obtain an "SDS permit." This argument lacks foundation.

As documented in the record of this proceeding (and as supported by other commenters such as the Land Stewardship Project), the MPCA has consistently testified to the legislature (both before and during the 20111egislative session) that restricting the MPCA's ability to issue NPDES permits to federal law would not affect the need for larger feedlots to operate under state permits (state disposal system or "SDS" permits) as required under existing rule. Producers can cite only bi lis that did not pass in support of their argument that the legislature somehow intended to change or eliminate the SDS permit requirement for larger feedlots. The producers fail to note that, in 2012, the legislature affirmed the existence of the SDS permit for feedlots by specifically extending its term to 10 years, and noting that (during that extended term) it was subject to modification. See Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 8b (2012). State disposal system permits are also specifically referred to in Minn. Stat. § 115.07, subd. 1. If producers were correct in their theory that the SDS permit was effectively repealed by either the 20111egislation or subsequent appropriations language referring to "operating permits," 1 there would have been no reason to pass the legislation that extended the term of SDS permits for feedlots, and other statutory language would also have required modification.

3. State law provides authority to the MPCA to require permits prior to discharges.

As the MPCA noted in its Response, the current federal NPDES permit rules applicable to feedlots establish a "run until tagged" permitting system insofar as a producer does not know whether a permit is required or not until a discharge has occurred. At that point, the feedlot is in noncompliance and subject to penalties for having failed to obtain an NPDES permit and must

1 As noted in prior comment responses, the MPCA views the SDS permit as an "operating permit" as opposed to a "construction permit." See Comment Response 8-2 (post-hearing comments).

7

apply for one, after the fact. 2 This system is not consistent with how Minnesota regulates facilities, whether landfills, tank farms, or feedlots. Minnesota law enables the MPCA to require permits that prohibit the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state, not just abate existing pollution. Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 1{c)(2). Minnesota law requires a person who is operating a disposal system (such as a liquid manure storage area) to submit plans and specifications before construction or operation. Minn. Stat. § 115.07, subd. 1. And Minnesota law requires the MPCA to "adopt rules governing issuance and denial of permits for livestock feedlots ... pursuant to this section." Minn. Stat.§ 116.07, subd. 7. Nothing in Minn. Stat.§ 116.07 limits the MPCA's authority to issue permits to facilities that have, in fact, had a discharge already (i.e., after-thefact permitting) and the MPCA has long implemented its feedlot rules to comply with the mandate for a permit in state law prior to discharge.

For these reasons, the AU should not recommend that the MPCA eliminate the permit requirement for feedlots with more than 1,000 animal units.

D. Patrick Lunemann, President, Minnesota Milk Producers Association

The letter submitted by Mr. Lunemann consists of the written statement he provided during the rule hearing that was identified as Exhibit 19 with the proposed rule citations included. The MPCA has provided responses to this letter in Response, Part V, 7-1 through 7-8 (pg. 25).

E. Bobby King, Land Stewardship Project, and Thorn Petersen, Minnesota Farmers Union

Comment E-1. Commenter supports issuance of the SDS permit. Commenter notes that MPCA testified during the 2010 legislative session that MPCA would require concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to obtain an SDS permit if an NPDES permit was not required due to changes in federal law.

Response E-1. Comment noted.

F. Denise Luk, Consultant, Socially Responsible Agricultural Project and others

Ms. Luk reiterated her previous comments. See Response, Part IV, 9-1 through 9-12 (pg. 17).

G. Chris Peterson, Pork Producer.

Mr. Peterson reiterated his previous comments. See Response, Part V, 11-1 and 11-2 (pg. 29)

Ill. Conclusion

The Agency has, through the SONAR, exhibits, oral testimony, Response and this Final Response, demonstrated that the proposed amendments are necessary and reasonable.

2 Moreover, in MPCA's experience, every feedlot will face conditions that may result in a discharge as there is approximately a 1/25 chance that "design storm capacity" will be exceeded each year. The MPCA believes that it is bad government to allow facilities to construct and operate and then require a permit only after a discharge has occurred. The MPCA has experience with cases involving unpermitted facilities, built at considerable expense, that required complicated and expensive retrofits because they failed to obtain a permit prior to construction that would assure the proper storage and handling of the manure and other wastewaters. These facilities also impacted the environment until the conditions were remedied.

8

O'Reilly, Ann (OAH)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Dear Judge O'Reilly,

Erica Havemeier <[email protected]> Friday, October 04, 2013 3:01 PM *OAH_RuleComments.OAH Gary Koch; Dustan Cross; Matthew Berger; [email protected] Minnesota Feedlot Rule Amendments OAH Docket No. 65-2200-30761 MN Pork Producers Association Rebuttal Comments.pdf

Enclosed for filing please find Minnesota Pork Producers Association's Rebuttal Comments to Proposed Rule Amendments to Minn. R. Ch. 7020, 7001 and 7002.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Erica L. Havemeier Legal Administrative Assistant GISLASON & HUNTER LLP 2700 S. Broadway P.O. Box 458 New Ulm, MN 56073-0458 Phone: (507) 354-3111 Fax: (507) 354-8447 Email: [email protected]

Information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any reading or dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any of its contents is stricdy prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and immediately delete the original message and any copy of it. Thank you.

EXHIBIT

i L.// 1

MINNESOTA PORK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

REBUTTAL COMMENTS TO PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS TO

MINN. R. CH. 7020, 7001 AND 7002

f!ORK....____. pRODUCERS

ASSOCIATION

1450650.1

I l i '

I

I

I I

[

As provided for by Administrative Law Judge O'Reilly at the public hearing on the above proposed rule-making held on September 9, 2013, the Minnesota Pork Producers Association ("MPPA") hereby submits these additional comments to respond to comments submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") on September 30, 2013. These comments are intended to supplement the comments originally provided by MPPA prior to the public hearing, as well as the comments submitted by it in writing on September 30, 2013, and the oral testimony provided by David Preisler and Gary Koch at the September 9, 2013, public hearing.

1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 7020.0505, items E & F and Rule 7020.0405, subpart 4. The MPPA acknowledges and appreciates the MPCA's willingness to modify its proposed changes to Minn. R. 7020.0205, items E & F, and Minn. R. 7020.0405, subpart 4, to address the MPP A's concerns with those amendments as originally proposed.

2. Proposed Amendment to Rule 7020.0300, subpart 17: The MPCA's response to MPPA's concerns about expanding the definition of "Owner" to include persons "proposing to have" possession, control, or title to an animal feedlot or manure storage area, demonstrates the inherent vagueness such a change will introduce.

• At Page 6 of its Comments, the MPCA states that it "does not believe that people who are merely interested in purchasing a feedlot in a general sense are 'proposing to have' possession, control, or title to a feedlot" but when a person has "taken actions to gain possession, control or title (such as entering into agreements with the owner) then that person should be an applicant for a permit".

• This explanation shows that even the MPCA is incapable of applying its proposed new definition with any specificity or clarity. What "actions to gain possession, control or title" does the MPCA have in mind? Its use of the parenthetical suggests that a signed purchase agreement will likely be interpreted by it as a person who is "proposing to have possession, control or title", but that the contrary is not the case. In other words, the absence of such an agreement is not sufficient to avoid possible application of the rule.

• The MPCA also states that a security agreement or mortgage would not trigger the lender's inclusion on a permit because while it is "theoretically possible" that the lender would be in possession of the feedlot, "that is not the intent of the security arrangement." But intent is not part of the proposed rule. Moreover, when does the lender's intent become sufficiently specific that it would be covered by this proposed rule? Would a lender be "proposing to have" possession if it declares a feedlot operator in default? When it initiates Farmer-Lender Mediation required by Minnesota Law? When it begins the foreclosure process? When it completes the foreclosure process?

2 1450650.1

3.

• This uncertainty in the scope and application of this proposed amendment has the potential of increasing the costs of financing to Minnesota's livestock producers. It should be noted that at least one public commenter does interpret this proposed rule change as extending to lenders. See Exhibit 27, page 2.

• The MPCA also makes no attempt to respond to MPPA's concerns about testamentary trusts which transfer facilities to a trust at death, and the reality that it may be impossible to comply with the proposed rule. There is clearly a proposal to have a Trustee assume control; but neither the trust nor the trustee's powers (to include joining in a permit application) are triggered until death.

• At various locations in its comments, the MPCA characterizes the entirety of its proposed rule changes as minor and in the nature of general "housekeeping." See Exhibit 25, page 17, Response 8-2. This proposed change is not housekeeping at all; it is a substantive change that will introduce unnecessary uncertainty and confusion into the permitting process and have an adverse impact on the alienability of livestock operations and property in Minnesota.

Proposed Amendment to Minnesota Rule 7020.0300, subpart 27: The MPCA candidly acknowledges that "there is currently no clear definition of waters of the United States due to various proposed Supreme Court cases that failed to establish a clear test" but nonetheless insists on including the proposed amendment. Exhibit 25, page 6, Response 3-3; see also id., page 23, Response 1-3 ("Unfortunately, as commenters have noted, there is no operative definition in statute or rule for 'waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act .... ").

• The proposed amendm~nt would define the term "waters of the United States" to have "the meaning given under the federal Clean Water Act," which the MPCA admits that there is no such meaning at all.

• The MPCA's citation to Hawkes v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, --F.Supp.2d ---, 2013 WL 3974484 (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2013), is misplaced. Hawkes dealt solely with the question of whether an Army Corps determination that a peat mine was subject to the Clean Water Act constituted a final agency action subject to judicial review under the federal Administrative Procedures Act. Judge Montgomery held it was not and dismissed the case. The case provides no more clarity on the definition of the term "waters of the United States" than those United States Supreme Court cases cited by MPP A previously.

• The MPCA suggests that it would "be willing to amend the rule to reference the definition in 40 C.F.R. 122.2" but then immediately recognizes that "it is likely that definition will be modified as it is not consistent with any of the Supreme Court 'tests'." The MPCA implies here, by suggesting a definition from the EPA's regulations that is clearly inconsistent with judicial construction of the

3 1450650.1

Clean Water Act, that the proposed "definition" is, by the MPCA's own admission, actually undefined and unclear.

• Because there is no clear definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, which the MPCA admits, MPCA's proposed amendment to define this term by referencing such a non-existent definition is unnecessary and is likely to cause significant confusion.

4. Proposed Amendment to Minnesota Rule 7020.0300, new subpart 14a: The MPCA states that it "does not anticipate that year to year adjustments to activities pursuant to a MMP in response to test data would be viewed as modifications to the plan itself' but then goes on to state that if a permittee "were to change the land used for manure management or the method used for managing manure," such changes would now require a permit amendment.

• The MPCA's only statutory citation to support its position is Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 8b, which merely states that "[a] facility or operation change [for an SDS Permit] may require a permit modification if required under agency rules." This statute does not support the MPCA's dramatic expansion of the circumstances under which a livestock operator must submit a permit amendment application; an expansion occurring during a rulemaking process that the MPCA self-describes as "housekeeping".

• The MPCA candidly admits that this change is intended to include operational changes that will not impact the number of animals or amount of manure at a feedlot. See Exhibit 25, page 7, Response 3-4. The MPCA brushes offMPPA's concerns about the increased costs associated with these numerous additional amendment applications by suggesting that many of the newly required submittals will be treated as minor permit amendments.

• The proposed rule further ignores Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subdivision 7(o), which provides that "[f]or the purposes of feedlot permitting, manure that is land applied, or a manure stockpile that is managed according to agency rule, must not be considered a discharge into waters of the state .... "

• The MPCA has also failed to address the time delay associated with expanding the submittals, while it is simultaneously defending the existing rule requiring permit applications to be submitted 180 days prior to construction, suggesting that the approval process for even minor permit amendment applications could be significantly delayed. The MPCA's responses did not even attempt to controvert the specific testimony of Patrick Lunemann of the Minnesota Milk Producers Association concerning lost business opportunities due to MPCA review delays. See Exhibit 25, pages 25-26 (MPCA responses to Mr. Lunemann's testimony)

4 1450650.1

5. Proposed Amendment to Minnesota Rule 7020.0405: The MPCA maintains that it is required by applicable law to base its permitting regime on the capacity of a facility rather than the actual number of animals in that facility.

• Under the federal regulations implementing the NPDES permit program, a permit may be required based on the actual number of animals that an animal feeding operation stables or confines. 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(4). In contrast, Minnesota Rules 7020.0405, subpart I, clause B, requires an SDS permit based on the number of animal units that the feedlot "is capable of holding."

• The MPCA makes no attempt to explain the standards it uses in determining capacity, or whether it has such standards at all, simply stating that the MPCA "provides a great deal of leeway in how a facility is sized" and that it is "aware that industry practices shift and takes this into account in looking at facility size." Exhibit 25, page 9, Response 3-9.

• Instead of using arbitrary methods to determine the capacity of a feedlot, the MPCA should alter this rule to base permit requirements on the actual number of animals that will be confined as provided in the federal regulations.

• Without any evidence ·to support the statement, the MPCA alleges that to "do otherwise would encourage some producers to oversize a facility to avoid environmental review, adding animals in small increments only after the facility is constructed." A producer willing to knowingly violate the law in such a fashion is just as likely to provided falsified construction plans showing an undersized facility; there is no evidence of such a practice in Minnesota and no evidence to support the MPCA's bald allegation that producers would overbuild a facility to knowingly avoid environmental review.

• Contrary to the MPCA's position, Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subdivision 2a(d) does not mandate that MPCA's permitting be based on facility capacity. That provision provides a blanket exemption from environmental review for "an animal feedlot facility with a capacity of less than 1,000 animal units" or an expansion with the total facility under 1,000 animal units; it does not mandate that MPCA's permitting requirements be based on capacity at all.

6. Proposed Amendment to Minnesota Rule 7020.0405, subpart 1: The MPCA claims that "in practice" it has always issued joint NPDES/SDS Permits and that "it is reasonable to issue one document containing all conditions". Exhibit 25, page 8, Response 3-7.

• The MPCA claims that it "was clear with legislators that separating the NPDES permit from the SDS permit would not result in meaningful change for permitted facilities with regard to the level of regulation and the standards that would be applied." Id, page 9, Response 3-8.

5 1450650.1

• However, despite acknowledging the legislative amendment, the MPCA's proposed amendment in fact does continue to create a joint NPDES/SDS Permit, and the MPCA's response is, in effect, an admission of that fact. The MPCA is mapping the NPDES requirements onto the SDS Permit, which is a violation of Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 7c.

• The MPCA does not identify any distinct requirements of the SDS Permit when it was "in practice" issued jointly with an NPDES Permit from 2001-2011; in fact, the MPCA was issuing an NPDES Permit and did not have a separate SDS Permit program for livestock operators during this time period.

• Under the Memorandum of Agreement between the MPCA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") effective June 30, 1974, as amended (copy attached), the MPCA is required to forward NPDES Permit applications to Region V of the EPA and therefore MPCA's use of "one application form to cover both permits" will obligate MPCA to forward such applications to the EPA and effectively require a feedlot operator to obtain an NPDES Permit when such a permit is not required by federal law in violation of Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subdivision 7c. See Exhibit 25, page 8, Response 3-7.

• The NPDES and SDS permit programs were intended as distinct and separate regulatory programs, and the MPCA's attempt to combine the permits impermissibly erodes this separation and would harm the regulatory structure under both programs.

7. Proposed Amendment to Minnesota Rule 7020.0505, subpart 2: The MPCA acknowledges the 150 day permit application processing period expected by Minn. Stat. § 116.03, subdivision 2b, but claims that the current submittal deadline of 180 days set forth in Rule 7020.0505, subpart 2 and Rule 7001.1040, should stay in effect because its "Feedlot Program consistently processes permit applications and issues permits in significantly fewer than 150 days". Exhibit 25, page 10, Response 3-11.

• The MPCA's response contradicts its position refusing to conform the rule to the statutory mandate. If the MPCA is processing permit applications in significantly fewer than 150 days, there is no need to require a 180-day lead time from submittal to construction. If the MPCA is accurate, then this rule is merely creating an unnecessary, added delay for the livestock producer which is directly inconsistent with the legislative mandate and the necessary time frame for MPCA staff to timely process these applications.

• The MPCA' s continued use of a pre-construction submittal period of 180 days directly contradicts the Minnesota legislature's 2011 directive that it "is the goal of the state that environmental and resource management permits be issued or denied within 150 days of the submission of a permit application," and is

6 1450650.1

therefore arbitrary and capricious. See Minn. Laws 2011, ch. 4 § 3 (codified at Minn. Stat § 116.03, subdivision 2b (2011)).

• In its responses, the MPCA somewhat contradictorily claims that "[f]or state permits, the deadline of ISO days is consistent with Minn. Stat. § 116.03." Exhibit 25, page 26, Response 7-3. The time period under Minn. R. 7020.0505, subpart 2.C. for an SDS Pennit is 180 days, not 120 days. Minn. R. 7001.1040A similarly requires 180 days for a permit application before construction, not 1 SO days as the MPCA here suggests.

8. Proposed Amendment to Minnesota Rule 7020.2003, subpart 1: The MPCA merely states that the addition of the ''non-limiting phrase" "other direct conduits to groundwater" is "reasonable and that it can be easily applied." Exhibit 25, page 11, Response 3-13.

• The MPCA's response shows why this standard is vague and overbroad. The MPCA simply states that there are "numerous examples of the prohibited discharge point" but fails to explain or provide any of them, or explain why the existing definition is inadequate.

• The existing definition prohibits manure, manure runoff, and process wastewater from flowing into a sinkhole, fractured bedrock, well, surface tile intake, mine or quarry.

• These specific items are clear and understandable to a livestock producer; "other direct conduits to groundwater'' is not and is subject to arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement and interpretation.

• The MPCA has not identified any interpretive or application problems with the existing rule, nor any situations where the existing definition was inadequate to protect the ground waters of the State of Minnesota.


U/2; D ~.Executive Director Minnesota Pork Producers Association

7 1450650.1

:· . ..: ..... ·.·.· .. ·.

. . ::_:::.::·:·:·:--::·· ·.·:-: '

Ji-~:~~~~f~=·~ .t:~ .. m~c:r.~.t~::cs

(1) Part:t:es. ¢he i1t!~~i¢~ to" th:is ·~g~ee_it).~nt (he_~~-j,:n~:r;;~r~

~~~- A~~~e;f~~rrt) B,r"e:· t'l:!e :UXI~At.:.~,<;l $t~·te$: ~P.v:t;ttp.:rnne:trt:a'l EKt~otc~£::t:.{~m;.

J\$Btl'.c;;t ,(he.l:le±nat:t,~:r·J.·· t.~~ EPA::~, :a11"d; ~:}le,· ;l;1iM:e:$ht·~ !P~ii-u~ig~ Cb~:~~·@:~

·c;~;} -~-~~p~_$.e." I·~ ·±,~, t..he l?~~P::~r~, :tt!Jf> 1;ib#> f4,~:l?;:e.~m¢nt' t:P- :~?~,v!:t4~

; ~:fie t:~t>ms '~nd c:o,n;~~:i?;to'U~ ,f'~rr ~~f?~'().~i :'b.t -~"&;~ ~~li .f:i~· 'tp~i ~~a'P:e, i~~~

-i::

:-.:

~~1\~$(rt.,a.~ $ Ftatt'o~fi;JJ.~ 1?:¢>~l#~~~~'$ »l~~t*l1®'&~' i~!'n.i~n~it¢~~ -S¥$:tgtn:

~('h~.at~w~a'f-~-~:n~, ~t~iliS\~·- :J?'e::rmt;tc.,,Pi:r:o'-pam :"Unrl~~~ t~~· ~:~&c~~,_~/:t ~tat;eir· 'P:o-:;t~J.iU:~ - ·:#t~rt ~~ttt,r¥.)l .A\c'~' -~4~~n~-~ tit ~:~%~ (,fte·r~in~f~!&~,, -:t;,~~-- .A.~t.\) '4lftl

>f;b¢ f;)A.t:s e;,~;t~~~l$1.1~~- fittr; ~'.S:t8;i;~_: ~~tt~~·~w~m~ri:~~, J~iM~:$~;a~y .tq?· . ~' ~~

~@;'ft'$ie;i1#a:t·1p-n tt-rt \Nat~'Qnaf:t 'P;~(l~f;;~~F: :l!.ti~;ch~;¢~~ ·ti1ij:~tnr;t;n:~t!:on -$~!$~11l,.'

·~~~~';t~at·~-~W! ~,~, '!!~~~,~~~~#.t;~( .~P~~~~~t~~-.tf('i;· '~~ ~~~' ';it~~g~~~%' ,;R~~~~~~'-·· v~~ 3.7li n&-~. at:ltf, t:~~:Y·t n~q:~m;~~'*: ,gi';J ili'9:1;#!,}: ~'P· ~,::1t*R-·· '??;iii;· ·~~:4:~, ~ ~

~W~)t!~~t;ts :'$,"{j:Ctl·~·f1~; ''04?'' i.'l:flie :tlu't<re':~-~·P-~~; ''n~~:~'t:~e ~Ji~, .~fi:;t;e;!<:: .Atlt."1.$n:i1:s~~a\t:.ii;¥~~ '"t'. .

-~!P-~(f~ · ·:Pte ~ ~tfl:~~· ~g~\~~: p~~~:t!'Ml9!t· ~~;lt.~~l-. :~~~'~11 -~Pt,~- 1;,ti¢:" i;t¢-d.n~:i:: ..

i~~$ii,;t.'$t;rat¢r. ()'~ ,~JWA ~~; ~t#~.:Ah _a~p~~i!l~~~ .~. ~'h~: :Jt¢,t.nn;;~ i~ N!li$:~b ~·l!~

-~·lit~:(W~1ttrfl.'e's ·aro-;~ .~~~ ,,fi'(!.t ·imlil:e::met'idleft.. 'tfiQ; ·S;ac~1J~~~ '~~;e: l1t:::;t\li;:r·~m-~,~fs.$:. -;~W'

~~~: ,~,~t<!f:l:t;1~'¢.$.~ ~-:q~:, r.g~!J!~tfit;:i:\~ -:P-*9'¢~~~l.1~t> ,~~! ~¥.\~~:t>.y:· ~~,¢~~ -~~f :11~"' , ~~~e: t!~re.p~o:v t>t ~~ .. ~;~s.~J;t~;y· [)ie?.~;~(l~~~~r';f··~~~· ·~t'r •. Q~~~.~ t:n.e:.· ,~it~~¥E~. -~Ja~' ·~~~:· l'H~J:t:to~1.~-dt;t;~~$f1:~a.t:dW o£:\$he:.IE;.tl~'f:®"' ~~ilP~ v: -(.h¢-r;(illi;#.ij'l!$.t~~.3;, ·:":

·· ~Jl~· ·~~t;t:<m~~)( 4:4'P~~~jit~~~;~~.~'- .:w~~- ~~«¥~~~~ ·. ~: rt;~§· ·~~~~l\~!i~ :~.e' 0 .... ~- -~ •

~~~~~(ta -~P l!t:~.eg~t>;~~,~ J,Y;~l\h. 1;;~~: -~J;~~l.;~p;~ ~~·- ~~' ·Q:~:;iitt~~~);1;¢;~~.. ,-;--~::

¥ ::=;..'

~y·.

-~

-~

'· : -~

-~·.

: -~

-.... ."1- •• ,.:··::

:,.-

· . .,.· •.,.

ll" . AG1t!t;Ef1!:l>l;m

Ge:oe:ra~:

t . ~-

·*~¢:~if:~: :t~n. ll ... CAl1~h.o.j;iltY; ~A:~'. s~Att:~ p~om~am ;nro~e~tu:ti~~). •.

,{:1~ 'l'b::e 1.¥~~ij4t ~lif~iptce:'4 9.ll Ml:l;r~b ·:~,;~.$' J.i~l7'4,~. 111:~~ '~'$;,,

;~ ~tslan"~Y ~~uJJ;a~~:Qll r::~:ta~i:n-~ to :NPDES )}emit pr'Oeoe:ctu:ret~

~~n~.ioter:rt w~~h ttt,e, tl~~e1~~~'~

£;~':> ~~· ~i~<>t ·~~~·.;l;l:. ~h,l9,W t;p~ ·$1::¢~~;!'!:4~;1,1~~ .~~ lt~(} SG

(~r$;«il~f¥m:; it:$ :o e~lP-i.tt·m, ~>~pe:~:a;;y tdia~'d' .~u.td \thus 1,-ailv::tn~ the~ f:~l:',(H~

'J:ii:tid ~:tl'$·¢t' of ;taw~ · .. flj:~· ~ft~fi'~ir.' ~~p·¢.¢:tsi 'tij~'f?· :JoWC ~:e ii~'lt:!.l n~~~

·:"(.i~~- ~~$¢'$. @~ ~$~~;¢:t :p,t:· :t~w q~ Ci~ b~~-C>~ ·.t4~~ ·;t,j' i~t1h

i!lij;~t~~~-. -Ji~#':·-~i ,.. {~~~~~~~-.~~!: ~~~: ,~f.;.':W¢die~aa .. n'ai~~J; .•. "· ~:M.i -~ :~;§.$~ ~$ ~W:~ ~~¢.f:i:i~n··1U~J ·(~};. ~- Jjt<~vt<&~

::ltl:J?' t.he ~~iU:l~~~ ':o:tt :i4®$~. ili~Et~ft~ a~ :'NliiES ;p~~iito a~$'e~lil~ai~qn~ --~~'i~k ,:~fiE!:• Jt~~ · t'Q· -~J?:ll ~~n~~:~· ~~:4, :C'P:) .·t;~· ~~ii!t'f~ ~~·~~· ;ll;tiwt

''-~~~lt;¢~~(~¢:~ *~ ·th~ 'ti~a~~l~:t'~$~ N:1¥1'ltll !f~Ar$$ ~ha·lit. ':l1l.~;; 4;Q~~~c•tl-~~.

-~. ~

:~biilt~ it\~~'~rgttten:t ·~h.~· ~~-~ti!t~naa ·A·Etmin:1st'~at:ol' sl'la~ia.. ,t)ilatl~m:t;t, ~.$ .

·.~~·· fil~~ict:Qr· ·~: ·~~$~ ~-~ ;~~ -~~:p$.$: p~1:'i¢i¥ ~~tX:J;(o~~~9n~· #~·c~·tv~·tl

,.~M-· ~~~;... ~:t·s: li~~·t $lj;~l ~((~i#~f,:! •t-h~ en•~ ~t. ~~-~~ ~~~fl#~~f!.J;~.j .

'·~··.$~ ~~ag~., .. ~~·P'l~:¢aP4t~Jf; numb$r1• and. ind:ii\ca\tce \4h.eiebe-r J3EA: .h® l

., ~~i¢~Wl~~;~~· '"~~~- ;~~~~~~~~:~·~®·~·- :•$}#~f .~~J(!J:l~.~:w.;~""' /1:

· (·;a3_ A~'\~~f 41;~¢i~·~Pl\ ·o~ .•:tJb:~ ·~~·~:t.~.. ;~h~ ft!~~·~.~~, ::$ti~:t~ · ~~~~~~?'

';!--

; I;

,~ .. ·. ··.· ..

.. ·

.... .. #h~. 'P;r:~¢~~it'i$.w ~trQ:~~ ~9 h~ J#r~;~ p:w th~· ltPA ''!;;p t:;ran::?mi'f<; #lie a,~:f>i.ioa~

ti<:m :15i1E£s to: :b:im... '!'he a,ppll'o.a:ti.lOoti ·:r::tle :S.ha~~tl i:n:c'\Iude tb~l ~f~,PJ!}$

p~~J11;'t:' f;i·plf>E':t~cat;:i6J:i :a;if& ·~n# ~\~J~i~# ip:§i;~~~p¢#~ r~,~J;;~ ¢:9Jl~:¥'t·~Hil '?y EP~n·,

!lth~ al)P·l·~¢?-~J.Qb :fj~;L~~ ~b~lJ. b·~ tra1J~mJ:t·t:e.o.. ::r;p •the: ;ti!rt:u~tor· accor<i.ftt$.

to ·the pr<ii.~rJ;;t:~ crder :tde:ntif'ifj'&·:~ Ei:hd ·t;he EP:A snifiill re'tail'!): ·on~

()·~~w· ·8W· $!i:tql~f $;+~¢ :@~:l!.Q1~m\l~~~!l1i· ''W¢: ~;~~ P;tp,~e;p~;r.·~

· de:rft:e·fu:e'trt b¥ th.~ E;f:;,AJ t'iae~ :~tr4~:~'6t.o':6 Efha·ll ttpt:a±n :r~om ~he ·q::Irftc•}'la');'~·,$i~

:·~ij~i :~P';~~.)lfBf;1J:·;it{;i~ ~{q~~~+::f::j;~~: ~.y· 'i:i~~· '$'1!$ ~·s; f>·$$.1tf$ )'$:~;~:.~:~:~~~$ ';ti~ ¢.~i,fip,;t;g:~:~ li1b:~ ·~»P;l~~i~'fli·~pn~ !Jt!J'l~·· ~W·~:~;\(:i!;).l,\'~ at: h:i;.~ :t~~~;¢J?r~!f;tprr,,: 'J'Jf~~~ .~~s,i:r

.titb.t;a::tn a'dd&iki:of.la:h .d;,n£j;o::t'mat4ibtr fi.&a? ·tiiiti:.s:•e ap~ii.it~<a,ti:ans iti.~nti1Ai.:teift: b:tf

~lj'%. ·~.:&}~ . ~;§: g;gl)Jg~~~ ~f ·. 4;~~~m;p;~~~:!f; )~9 \t:P.4f4~$.; .. 9.~· :;p~;&~~~~$ ~J4·~.

•*ili?~:l~~~Jl~Q;~~~

~~.}~ on~~ tTha D.±r~~<:d.t()r' id$t:e<~m4:tri~s ib?haiti' .ati ~8f~i!fl::1iie:atdzo'tx tt~ co..r:rt'l?3~e:lie:;~

:,~~ \~t#~t±\~. ·f;~i~t$;¢.~~; ~1M~: 9)(),;P:tk~t~t i<;tf'' :t~~ :~:P~;);lii~H~i ·~n~·W~!¢;~~:~9~ ~'@ ·~ . ~

·.¢:§'~~ilir :1;~~1.~:gM '$~~,~~;~~~P.m: ··ttij~~. s~!J.l~ '?.R1A$lt•g;?;t:t!Sl:til. ':h~~: J.b.~~P ~~~:e«ir~i.n:¢:$~/

' · ;<JQPH (s:i:'l.(a•Ji.:t he :rQ~.~a: t;zy ·"~t~~ ·~~·~~P".P:al P~:t.:~ :~lp;~~~~~t :$;~~~~~¢irs .$:\¥~v.f#f:1;~"""

·· ;:ia;n,11e: il·tvi:1'{·!;o;n\~.· thro;a~~· i'lli;!: L~~~at'Je:e· &:~ctlt~'G>'rt.). <E1dia:r;;o.·em-e.tt't· b±v:lai$p:~,~ ....

. r~t P.:i;i9\9:t:r§:l!4~ 1.~~9- f:th~· :m~.R:+:9n~+ 1P.§I::P•~ ~:a.na<; '.?fi.(\\: ''P.'tl~ ~J;:R.t~t q9Pi1 ~D~+:@

;l\),;¢: p;it~Q@4 j.:'x:l l::b~, ''N'Wi~~.$ :Il!e:J1~~ j~.at1~b ,f,ttle;:.,

' :¢6~~: . Tla~ Dlt:t"e:M;'ett>; soha'I'i .. ~e <t:ilim,~:J:w:, .E:ttiv:i,sta:<t'~Jil~ :;t~;t~~;r tila·t". ·t'b~

:&~i'~:fi~~+: :~g~~ JBi~~~~R' a~n:~:l:l,1, ,~:.~t!i~~P.:#~ w;i;~,J::i~ tt~~ :g,$;~)~pm~,~~t±,orL ·:attd'. :tJ:iJat

'~: '~:~J>:-¥: ,~~· l::l\lliii,,.~~·~·~:~;'l;li~~;~n,· ib~~ il:>-:~:~'11) ttt.~~:o:P.m~.@':t.:gl; ·~;9. r~~; a:t~~~· :~gh~j~~-

· l!tert~ ·~w%i6;;!i~;!! ... -~-

m~t -:t~i1~e\= ~~!?;A;. ~lat1:>ett7Jn~{iit!~tt~ ·tth:a;1k: iiit~:· ;;-~~p.~t~:.~~a:t.~:.oJ~ ,_,i:s~~: :-J1~¥.--~: ~r,

-; :~-

...

..

· ... -

~efl1pol~toe ,. the. R•eg::tonal t-rPb:ES Perm;!}!; stanch sn:~ll $d'en'i;;':i.f~ 1;~~

:4~fi,:.~:;te~:¢'1:~~' '1.1:9' :t~~~:~;P ~o 1;'11~ J;:>~t'~:ct;·~:t.?"' Tl)e 1)~~-e~t()~: $;ey~~l g1;.~~mp't

t·Q :rc~~);ye all d~tieiene':i~§ within 2{) t'lays or cla:t·$ ~f re~e.±vt of

.·~

C7l ·~:h¢ Y,¢gl:o:~~l A4~ni$t~~'t9;r ~~ll pxoov;tgte tfP.:J.;,~~e.n ~~~))~

Qn: \a.n ·a;~;~pl1Q~-t:£Qll ~Q~ ;:l. ~DES ·p~vmit no· lat~r than aoi (lay$ :r~qm. );b~.

a~t,.e of' re.e:etpt- oi~ app:l,i:cation ~ont the Azene~·· IDhe R~~~P·na:t ·Ari!A'£~~t~""" .·

~?~t()r may l't+~~:!J) .~Jl~'~ a:q ilil:Y p~~±P:d. fi~qq~:r$t ~4~1r+Pn~:l,. t;~m~·

::n~~ tq •I;!:J¥e~~ A 't9i;~:l of ·4:P d~~~~~ ·~~· ·Ui~ec1;q:t> tn~Y· .~~$:'4Ui~'1 ~;t;~$~ te~:t~.~

... ea~i'orf :o'£· re~·e:tpt: c>:t. the ~llJ.i:t·i¢a¢;t;o~~ that· no ¢Q~~lt' is: :i:<>.~t'b~<>m~~:

.~r ··~~. :JI~f;i: :rrit'#fi:t¥.$4 nQ ~;f:~P-An§·~ ~:tt~m; :~t.t~ ~~~t~<>#~~· 44ln+~::t~~r·!i~~fi: ~# ... •·. . ' ..

J No NPJ:i.Es f+:Pf!1¢e'at';ton ~}}a~~ '1)4 proc~s.sea ''q\Y the ~¢n.eM :unt$.:1

,. .; .:~_

,,, ;:~~:t.. ;(.J;~.t~p~~,c;f~)~$ ·~~g-~n·:e.·~if·~e,~ 'ltrj'• ·~~.:.:f¥:P,t\. ~l!l C.:o/rr~:~(ti¢~ :~n~ ··~~~ ti.~~~;¢\lf~r'

:;~~;e:,e¢¥~'$· a 1~;t:b:ew· ko-m t.;be-• Ei\i:A ·eqn:c:uwll':i~ wa:t•ll t.h~· )'!l:~p.g_q.$P,~ ~lit.4~: ~-j.·

-. .!;._"•;~.>e· ·,, ;;;.;. · .• r.. .. ··-.· .. •n.•.·.>".·.·i: ..... ·.···.· .. 'd .. ·.·.• .;~~-.•.··-.4.·.·,<"'.·"" .... .-.. · ... · '-"'''"· • .,. . ..,,..rl'"""'""·e·· ·· ·l.l.!.s,:J: :~~¥;~:.L:"'~'-V~~-.& -~p. -~~~~'¢~-~~:p: .. : :.::-.

·~~~~:!~~·:.(~t?:n:~i~~-~ .. ~:~~:1~~~~~~:~'~'~:9.1'1. ;,~:t\·:~~P!.: .. ~:9:-.,;R~~~~~~;~, ·-·~~~:~;9i:~ti!~(trgf))~> Ea:} 9)11~ JJ>+:t~~(t:t~~ $;~a;~11 t~~ti~ro&t t9 ~h$ a~1;~6rtat. Atlm:t!n~$~~~.~;wr·

··¢Rl?t;~§ ~~ 9i9mP::t~ti:~~ l\t:JR:t;.~$~ ·~PPi~.;~ili~QU £9;~:$• ~~~m.tJ:~~:t.~~'· ;l:l;~ P:l!!~ ~J?.P:!¥ii-~~W;i>~ ·.~ ..

'WbEirl the stat~ cice""emnines that the N'P:D:&s·: a~nt-lo:a,ti~n . . . ·. '. • - .: -.. ·- ..... _;~ ..... : •' •. ··-::: ,, '. . •. . : : .• l •. « "' ~ ''···-~~---· .. ~"-'··:'· • .. :~' ,:,-:,,,.

,, •:£6~ms. r~~,:e:tv~~ :from pi)!~·· d±$:t!'lJ'ai:~Fir· E(l"'e ¢olllp'leiff(?'. t~o· ~~~'!;~;~ c:lff j,' ••

··~· ~li~· :~9-tiP~ .. l'{,t~li .. ~ ~~'i¢? ~~t~·~r,· '~f:t~,~~~~-~~1~ ¥P~~· ~P~- ~c;>~W:$ ~·~ !-<!-

'·if' ... :Q:nm~ttet~ .s:ila11 b'e tmn:slil!tt,:eea. ~t·o· ·t:b~ l«&i~:m-~1 ,Aam&n~$:~·~~'#:q~.~

·~~·;~~~'*9ti:~ ·~~~~~ ~#~~~~~ ~'f' ;-~: ~~:9..~i~~ ~t·~:t·~· t:fi'~; lll\F,e•C:t®~. ~q~

-:r:· : ~

:i.;.,_

·~-OPY sn~:p. be ~p);}t;,eg tp 1;he li~~;f;qft~l .pat?, M~li~~-~meny $~¢.t:l(1rt,.

::::::: =~=$::::.::1~~=n::i:: =~:~' F;Jil~ {:bere:t11af'ter) QfS~J ~nd ·~·ltt1• <!~l.lE!:r. cc;>p;V shaii bt;i p-:lat;e·c;t i;p

t~e ~~_gie>n~:t ~P:n:s~ ~'el<~m¢-t: ll!r,~cb. NP-,~+ ~~· J;t;t't1.¢¢,~:QP ~~·~~:.t b~

a(tvifl·ed bY. j_e.t{i·~~ t'~t tl'i¢ EP-A dQ·l'l~1lP~: w;t{~h .h®•s· -~~~·e:l':lm!n~pi;or,...

and t.bat a epJ;)~. t>f' ,.;f;h¢ 'NP:P'$$ t,tppti.;¢•~'f;J¥q~ J6:t>m h'tt:S· be¢n ·t·~an$~~r~Q:

~~ the EP:-1\.. ¥~~~-Qn~ ~t~ ~an~&e~nt:: $~ci~~Q;~J 'fb~ ~P.~~.:e ~Y ~P~ot

~!t:r>e'¢#;J;y i•tt]t:Q "tiJx~ f*,$F :s:qii;~<eoc:t •t.:P. ·p.:n.i.P"w ~~l?~g:v~l P~ pi!¢rc:·~·a:q.l?~;~.

·h~' t:ne ·J1~DE$ i>e~~~'ti·· ·~ra~t~h ~~W ~tilt:· M"~n§l.t@zrf~nt ·se·ti&ian • ±t:~ t.h;e

·.$PA .q;~tr#xam:ihe~ P:~4t• t'])e :~e::on.& ;AA»4j;:¢f!t:t:~~; :,t~~itt ~:§ P4t:· Q:oJA!'>:J.~·~·&: . ., •.

'!ih~: :tl¢:t>;;;¢;t¢t;i¢i~-t$~ ~~~l. ;J:t~ :i;d~t!l~!iii~e!tl "~lY ,1.e:$,~e::u· ·:t(>,· ~h~ l);tr.~,~~~~,~ ., .. ~:o •.. N·:R~ms agp··itcat!ot?;· ·$'h~i~ 'lfi:e p;r.Q".e;~~iS:(?.tl '·~·t 't-he ~~-en·c·¥ unt!i t)}$ ..

·.~:.

,;.,:

~~i.'-i·¢(;i;;~'ft<>j~~'$ -~tai~: Q'.9~:tle:~!t~:~ ;a~~~ ~.~ )ijt:§ 'Q'~~n· ~~~v~~~~(l 'JJti \~P~~~~g; :.

"'

~21 lf~Qfl :r.~;c;e,£:¢·ji~lt :·a. tmP~ ~ppl,i~~atd.:on; ,fi~~:m; t~om t'b~· 'f),1~~-~t~;~,

~~(;)~:+~ t'ne $~_8jJ;;~fl.:~l-AdllrltA$:$"~t';~t;qil?: ~:4.~&:~~-;f:y• (~lJY', ~~:·¢.\1):~~·$~ ~·11};:4'~t.

bg$ 'fit.: .t<>:tfa:J.. v-~a'~m:~;f ·~f' :l~s-$. :tfi~- :~o.-~.~1to1 ~alltq.n:o$'' :On ;¢V'·~~Y 9..a:u' -~:t

•t.lie ~.e.~ a$ ~.- «il·$:c;~~l'$:¢: l-tb.t~h ;5i;; .·p.o"J; 1l·mtn<>r •.di;s.¢liar$~f~ ~n«$!: ~'9lt'.f!'i¢·~ •

·~g~ .. _l)~r~¢x:o,~)· ·!l'))~-. lfir~<#:t.qfr: .$.l?;@,~,:t .~gq~~~ it~~- ·~~p,;t;J,'*~¥ tor'··t"!1e;

\i d1$~b;<ir'se to ~ubm:it E!P:t~1A;;'i¢nai H~n~s ·:appl;t9.~~Jt&ti :t9i¥m~ ;qt> «nY. ·•· il)t;heir' ~·n't!a.mrta~-t.c>n; ·~-!il!q:~~;~~~·4 ~''$'' ~;b,~, ·l~~i~~ai .1\'~nili~~tt'X!:a'tQ~·ii

('~:~ ~!l:l~:ti ~~q!!~$:t~'t\ .b~ t:)l~, J{~s~!P~gl ~~m~i;~#r~~~~. 'Pheo;

.)~~~~~Q~ $~:;r;a t:P-.an~mit- ·Q:~p'$:~.13 -~t,. ·ni:>~l:~~- .. p:g~~$:vi'ii:~ llw q~ .:P~~~

·;..· . .::.

~-

·.,_:'.

:-..:.·

....

··~·

:-;,:;.

~e¢~~~foi,lg:~t .. ~-5'~·))1 .~n(l Xcl_ .··- (Pul)':t~~- .Ac,ees;s :ii~ __ -lJ1~orJnJ;ttidni.

(':() f.Pl),(? Va.~f;C'i;,~~ $hall J)l?Ote~t ~ny ;Ol;t'QtiJnattQ)l ~~t:b:¢l' tb~"~i

. ,ef"t:J:uent d.a,a,] o·onta1n:ed in:- · $Ue"h N'PnEs t-o~m.:~ -o:r othe:r re:cord:s:-t

:~~por::e~ <>r p:ra.p$ ~~, ~pl:lf;.ci~ntiq.J; uppn a ~!lP~~~il& 'by any per$ori tl)at

~~¢b. $~ti!~~J!l~P$.qr;t. ~-~ ;;m,a;~~ ~~\>],~~- t1fop;l.4 .~:bi~.(,t,~~ m~:@li9~-~ 9~ p~~-~~;.s~ls.

:~ti~tled to· l)~ot~~.ei;;i:():rt as tr>ad'~ secnets: or that ~e~~otl.• fti.\~,

~#:rl~V-~!"; j -~;tt~ ~-@l;tp~gl;;~'Qp ·~!j;:P~; :¢q~~t.~EJ~~tl.; t<i# -eort,t:¢d$J'it*~* t~~~~--~

'mmt• '1:·1$ ~qn·tai.ri~d in a ~ti~~t ::t\~~,. th~ U$.~~g$o'r ~hj);I. ·r~~.w,~r:~l

·:snef:i \lin£onm~tfit)l1- t:o ti\te B'e;~:iqnai Admi"ni'S/t~~~.Ox- to~· h$~ e~n":Cu~~~l\lc:~

·-1~~at;owr- dQ-~s ,}lPt:· ~~~~e: -~h~~ -'~9PHi~ Q~ a:14 ~f ~-n:~ ·:t)i~t>ifm~~~§f~:·l).~¢ti'S;

· ¢.::>trs\f.Gte-~erl 'Tor. erenf!tti~n'tiai tr:eahen~ 'lil:er:it s, :'su~h: p~,~:.t;~:AJs:'i:¢~n'i :;}l~,

f§:~?.J ~~it~~-~~ .~~'#~ti~ tP:§t!l; ··-~~~·· :Ett~·--~ QJ:oc;~¢'~· glf.' :~~tfe~-~~ :«9~v.·~~~-:J· -~•©~1:~p~ :~·h:r ~,~~~Ptt~ ,9~· :hit-~. ·:g$§!~$:r.~,gm.~tiit' ·w~~f1 -~:h;~ .~~~.~~~~.i~:Y

~- . . :q$ :ttiei ·n~~<Jl!;i.':(;}lt.. fu~; ~-R~$.if¢::.l~1 ;Jtcd$ii:~.t-li",a:tPr 1:'S."ha'l:'1 ;::~:~u;'j)t;~~g~l;!~;lJ'

·.mt1?~;~~~ ~ '¢!~~~ 'P'I R41~· :;1Jj:i£j.~~~ ~;(() lt;;ll._~: ~~r~~~; W;¥~f~~j;t\~ ;t~~et:l11:~

m-~1~ 1\t~:~~:r~o. ·¢@;\\m'$;'¢{1. •\Sl1«:tl Q:~.Jl·~~m:;tn~~· ;~ti~~~,n,~.~ ~j~:Ji% ii;~~?P-~,... .. ~

j ~

,t}~on. !Jtn qu$':s:tjj;()ti l't~~'i:d:,r f:ifl r:e;v:e·:a'le:d~:. aii;vua.~~: ;me·&;·;i~~d:~ p;r: -~~,Q~~:§>·§~:§: ·

,~~~~:~'%.~4 ~2 P:t'fQ~'~Q!f¥$;~'~, '~·ti' ·t:tJ~'<:\i$ ~~·ci#!.~t'S'·!. ;~;~; 1ffi~~::il·n:m S:~Pl'i d~rt:•~:w~$~~~

·t·f~n$_?1 het a:n:a;n:;t ·~(i.l~$.~~ie.·~· J~iO!tw ~~~~t(1'9:Pi:+ d;n;t:~ttmg~P.P: :~p;l@iJ¥~:-~$~ 1i'9:

··~J.l~ p;tf~~ce o·ft Getle-r.:a1 Couna.e1 ttli't:bitn: :~o d~lfs "~i''·~~(l~1~t pifi

;~~~ ~~q~~-~;t; ·t~-~~1 ifi~' ~~g~p)?.~;t .A;d~i1l',1;:~~~~11Pt¢'',"' jtt· t;l\i~ G¢n~ra't ~ ·~

, 'C<>un':fml d1a:t'~~4.'n~:$.: tihat .p)Jl:~. $'nto;r#i)g~;tptJ b~.'$'~8, ~~:§:$4~~~:d ~~~¢'; •::f:1.~~!i' !¢.

:cton'ti·a~tl- f;;tt.~~~ :se:~refts: lt~ '~b~ll 'Sro a-dtVrf;$,e ·tb~: :a~f!;~P,Jl~~ A;~ml~X~t#~""'

~ tg~. ~n~ $.14~+-+ ~9~~~tt: -~lj_~- ;:p~~~~~-: ~9~~~ilf~'P:g ~:r~.ti~ ;~~¢~~~~ ;4'-~ su~l);

t4.:~·t~-;~~ia!n:~~:~~n- '~ft! y;~.r-.t.l~:~.~jr ;~t;;.t'lt )l~ $:#¢l~}~~,, ;:~J?;p· :.$Q' ~';t~

i· ..

·~

··q.·:

.. ;.,

,;.·.

to:l'l~wins: t'h~ m~~l~~ ot ~~pli llqt;~¢'q~ ~h.¢' ·J:i.\'!:$::\9tl:~l. ~gm~A:t§:t?~i;l<ttj'Jp

'f}fia;:tl ~9lt1tri\ilrt:i;c;a'!;e tc>. :~l:'l:e AS'.~1tll"~ n1J~' ¢~;ci·~:tp,r,.: not 'e'q c<:>nc.ur !n t~e

w1ithnoll;iil:l:E,i;· or §'IJ,.pb il~t/;;tr,ll\la t±~n.,~, ~nd t'he il:~~:m:¢:,;Y apd t'fi.e; R$~ion.ai ii>.:

:Ail~nisti--atot' sh4~:t t;he~ 'mt2.kfi ·~~~~bl~; tQ. ~:])~ PAA'Pli.c 4P'PA ~~fa~.teS,¥,

~b~~: :$Jitf:~f1W.~~'~ql). gg;'!f~~m;:t;r:r~.~ ~1.1't_. ~·~ ·e<>ns:i;.~~:'l):~e ·t!~.a;~~. ~~~~~.t,~iiJ· ·iinl~$·§

an aP,:p~al. i:s m~de t•o El?~ ~u· t~~· p~15~bn el;~:tmirt.$ :t~i!4de .see·ree~~

·. ·,;,

~~n.: ~~~tt:en ~ecpJ.,~~:t ~~~:tn~i'G?:r.~ t.o. th~ n~~:;t~onaa Jl:d'minits·t~ato,r~ or

~\$ ;;~~~~o:cr~~e& ·~~;J:)~:~~ett~?rf;~'f~)· · 'w~o· ·.~,q,~Wl:. ~.l;il'~~)1¥ ~he: ~;tsc:·:~J;i,.$~fl

~~~.~~t~;rl ~~ ¢~~·c~~~~~~-·

;~.~~m~ ~~~.:.t;~~Cf:i~t~tJ:~'· -·~~t,~:~~,~·~ .. '~~¥-~~~,'~. :mha NtS¢:tl~,~ 'ha:§ ljj;-:h~ 9i®:t:h<>:r~it!.;tt~;·:um:~'e.t' •t,b'i:~ Mell'r!:>ii:~ttdum. ::o.£ :1\:':r~·e:~

: ... ,, ~: .. ..... . .

1n~nt tq ·±.n~4'·U:~e :~:pe.e'4'~J; ·~9l1~~it~.~n~ ·~··• J>~t~~~~ ~?iil'' •titt;t!1$·Q·?:v~J1· :«l~~:Qg;tt$~r.$: ~.hat; wj;J.l: P.Q~ ~e, .t~~· ·1!.Q• .g:¢~:i.:e-v:e #h~ ~:f:t\'b,.tE;,iJ.:t;

1~t:.atbm:s .ot ·$.ec.tiou $:Gt('l!J•).(t> or t:b~ .f\;ot d~~ to t~e l:~:fck ot ......

;~~-:ti~~ :~!II F'~~~~·~;t ·$~~n$ Jlt9~, t9~ ntt~l#:Ql;¥ :~!~P,(i;q' ·1;~~~j':m¢~:t ·~1~~~~;!;

~i!l' ii~4~li~1 me?tl.~Y i'$ ~·,~~~t~~l t:9~ :~r¥P~~ai ·imn~9v¢mgn~.f?· ~·9 .in.:~·~t·

~t'he r·~q..u:!t.remen:i<$> ·oct $'¢¢\li~.!:m. aot;(.h.a ~·~ 1 :fi!fid ~·s· rtQit)• $;:V-ai:taJ:'ile,.~; the:

,~~~rn.,.~ W:tl)~m~; ll:i~'';" :i';~9.'4~:!!:~ ?in.t·. ;i:li.~~~~t: :~mg~wv~m(!~.t~~.. 'W~~· ·~l?'~~.:fi>~g;

,jt¥~'i~'~~ ~:9~.®l~:t.t;n1~. '$httJJ':t ~~~.¢;l~~~~t, ·b~J:t. P:~t i>:r~· . x:m~~;~j; t·9l t;h~ . .. . .· ~ .

.:.; . ~·

: -:~:

.. .-~.

·~··

I af;l~ n~ed~(i m:trtor :facilities ~o¢it'ieat:i~n$·, 1t~ tb~ fUl:l e~t'Ei.llt> . . ..... .. ·'.. . . ' . . . .. f ... . ... ' ., .

··<>f :St:f!tp a.n•d· :to·eal y~J>,a&$;1fbie~ ~Pil avad;i~,·;t~ t4n<t~t (p) .~nt~~f;Lm

!'J.QJn,pli••anc~ obJ'eet:ives to be achieved. before "'uly l ~ 1917; an:d

·(,e). ttPPn tfie ::a:\r~·ilaJ;i~iJ~y !;)!:' F~dera:a funding~ th~ pf;lrmH:: fimll,

~e. •:tJ1l)lt~;,9$:g~·~J:y· ·~:qb:J;~.ct t:o rec:on;~~~:.te~&tJ<;m ~n:1:l mpd;!J'+*~;~.~~Yi· ''tt~:n

-~· ~'ti~~tiute: i'~r c:C!m~:t:~ato:fe ~t th!!f ea~li¢$~ tii.¢ey$i:blie ~atre~·, ?Jtr,e;

41.~~¢:# ~~~J.;+ ~&~p· ~l{l: s:Y:~-l'i :p~:~mti:Jt:~· t.tntl.et- ti~ose review t.~· :tri·sur.¢ '

.. cpmt);~'$gne,(l! wit~· $b~ _$:p·¢~'~a'J. .c.o~.Q.:\t'tion,$ .•

·~~t;$·Q\n 3:24 •. 1!:4·~~): . 8·~~~~\iie• P:~· ,p~mQli~t1~'e. ·~l$ ±s:~~·~~' ~-~tJ~~. fr~lfm±~.·$J. :Qfi. f;he fuast d~:t G\.V t'~~· ml:in'Flt$ :of _Febrtl;~~W'.t; .·)~aN·~ Aug~~t;) Et:P:.a

;J«9v~~~~-'$ ~~ n~:~~,t.:Qn $%\ail ·tt,~Mf~,Fp ~.9 tl:l~ ·a¢g~Q~~l ~~l:·t1&fi~~~~

~(\)~,,., · :A\t;t~n~OJp;n;; 09mp1:1~·1l·e-~: .see:t!op~ ~pforQ:~l'M:lt,dt <o~:v:i,r$:$~n,. -~·-· ~$$:~

·.'P'd'· «:!J.;ff; .;t::•S:tiaJ)~)a!s:;:,· a~~ ;&:f ao 4~~s :lir~~r t9. the Jc;laci;;e; ctt· snqn ~.!H~P~i;i··~.

ti:lf !ra~lu~e o,a, l"e~~~a,. ,.c)~t ·.·t:t; .. ·~pits ~~t>mfu$,$\e¢: 'tP' -~oinl;i.~J <Vt:;ttn an: .i~

4'~;~~p~;~. ~;¢ '@\$~~-~ ·fi~M!tl:~r:em~tt~ ·:Q~i ~() !i:¢~arv t:h~, .l!!~t.~.Qi~.b» qt; ~Q:mtf~t.~!l9,~·

·;(l~; u~nqffim~);~$.~'¢.¢ wl.~p .ea:~h, ·:t;tit~b. ~ f':$nai· ~~9~·~reJn.e:nt (~\~ ~:~ij~~E;j~· .

. p~~$.~a:¥tt t:~ s:e(t}'eif:¢~n. · .lfiilt- 414.'('~>·'> hi'' 'the .G:h:td¢i~~n:erso'h~ :~a. ·anw: t-~~a~~~~

~~·®~A~,f:.~~~;:tii~·&Wt Kfi# ··~- ~'e';lil:¢:tlJi4i~, ,~:if £i;>mp::t+~n:e:e,,. T~~ ·~~:$.~ '$'P:a;·:~;l P.~: •f

~#J.i1.'1alil:~ ~,Q ~ll~· 'P·~Q;t;;tl)· ·t:t~1r lln~~~.~·tt9rt ·~t:),Q.: colJ:~t~~ .an;ti ·~:~il~,l·l, QP'n~ -~

:~

';([;}.;' ~~=~=~~;-nc;t ~~ti~~~·$ ~r Eractt ·~pnq~mPl;t~~ ~~~_p~s

1t s~I!)X$ dF!$.~~1 >~~n_:~;~t::~:~J;,.i;r,$:~~:nq;~. of!' ·n,m;q;q~""

--~.-.r.··.·.··,': .. : .. ~.·.:.· .. l·.:.·~.-.~.·-.;.:; .•.. -.·~.-.r.1,: .• ·.~-~ •• -~_: .. ~_-.·.·.;·~---.•· .•. '.·.··.· ... ·.~.: •. ~.•~''·'. _:.~.-.'ll' .. •·.:.· .... ~.~~.·.: •. :~.·.· .. :.:_•.·.: ... ·~.:_··.'·;·B.~-.-·.··.: ... ~ .. ·· .. ·.·.·.·~-~-~-~.· .. ·.: .• ~.~-\.·· ... ·.·.·.·~-· -~ . ~~'ll$ ~~ ~"''"~~_.,, .. -;:: • ..- ..... , .... ,..·~:: ..;c;r.~ f:i~;~~i!'~ ~\9' ctl;pt~~:t~~ ':11:~~ ·•.

·:0:=

,:·.

·~.··

· .... :

., :.~

{.·.·.t... . . . ... " ... .. 1: At tl;l~ ti)lle• :a pup:t·~c. i19~:1.9:~, !"?#.q~~,~~~ ~~· §',~p1?'1tin' 12'4 • ~2

:tlt ·:t:~(if §\;l..~::~·f:J:~¢f.l¢;s. · :t$ :t~sti'e4.) tj}~i :JldJt~~~9r: ·ij'Pl:iil. t~«i·~m;t,~ . 9tl~~. _.¢:<'JP.:Y ::p_t. th¢· lti?nll:$ J):UJ);;l:i~· 4i!)t.i:c·¢> !;;~':eft: · $~h'!J:et•s-?: ·.~~~';;dl:~'P:s;e:&: N~PES· J?~l?!,n±;t

>~a :~ ·t~':i;st ~t .•~:t~.l. -l)i=r~¢~.§ ~J~:~~~~·y;~l)~, w~~~ :nB»4:~:Q po~·;tc,.~ .. r~~·t. ~:hee:t·$;

· • · · ~g·, t>~r-~pq~~a .t<t~:Pl$ .tr.~~t;t'i ~f¢!g¢;~~~~ ~t:Mil;. ~~, <t:e:~9:~p[f;:~9n. :~:r ~nt

: :t.':

: .;;

:. . ~ ..

" :({~ih,~· ;p.~.P~t;4~.~ .~·~e,& ~P" . c4it~wl;~~¢• ·~}}¢· ~U:1S1-i·e 1\'0Jt·!:'ce~#:' tq ·~~·

;·~~l!li~n~+ ·~~~W!/i'i1~~t~~~; .~~t~nJt;:~~#'"!~· N~PJt~ ·~~~1~:. ·~artch'"' ~11~

·~ii~~~m~~i:~n t:~~n:~m~~t~~ ·w1l~~ i#~e~ ·i:l~~~~~;€,},.,; ;~~~~;m~~; .·~Jt1g+·t ~~i~~Br:f,:t~

.t:l'Jl~ $;l,1t~ ra:Jll it·~Wm!i:·, C.~tt,(ifi;i;;(t~~~t :!fe'tl.'J.l:\:tf~mel'it$ ~ ;(:):~, ~QiCHlJJXet:d~{:t :whi •. &~, ;~;¢,

··w""""""' '"'~ ·t~"" 'n"'"o··· p·· 7;,-s····e· ,;;t i1·n~fM:r. ·p· ""''Pi""''-'··.G ....... ..,· .. ·.'.~ .. ·.: .... ·, '.·:""' .. ' .. -.·.·'"'.·.·.·.'"'.•.•.·.·,.·•-."' ... -... "' .. ··.·.·.· ~'"'.·.·-.. •:*' ...... ;t. ... :o .. ·.·.~.·.:~·t: t•"".·.: .. -.-e .. ·-.• .""'ttth6r:l.~a.;-• ;~~->~' Y."·~. .-.~1~~-- _Ji(~', ··. _·, ,~: · .. ·. ~ -J~:¥-P.,P·~ ~-.. . -~~--~~t+-~P -~:d!; nJJ~""':t:.t ~~-~-~"" '.1-:t Q.

•&hp;a!~ ~:()fi:s~d;e'r ... ~)Ua ¢.·qtrtm~fH(a ~~~;~~¥~~ '~s ·.~.· :c::~~wl&t, .:fiff ·tb.e .. pub;1;t;p .,. . !

!i~1f'$.~:~ .~~·: .ffi~t m'QUitt.N ··t'n~ ~AA'tQ•j}ij4• *I~~~~ P~~m?flt; :~.~ ~t; ~?lf{'!i·<l·~r.:s

,~~J?r~p~~at·~· '~ijbt~'P• ~~~~·$~~·~; illl~¥' h~ ·h<fl:4 a$ ~:f-Q,y;l;~(i,;i .;t"~~ ;Jlti.: ~,

-·:S·~~~itt?n tt·a~.~ ~9'· ·:~# ·vlj~ ~~-a~+4:l.l~~;.. :~· ·~ -~trm~~ h'~~ii~~: .i~t hexil ~ . ~f!~: •tlfiln~;5.t ·~ft~\~+; e.t:ll~.iR<f~ g~l; ¢jw.fu~n~·f$.: :~~ fll~~ :m9ijil,fy;" -~n~- i?it91~:g.t?.'~fJ:'

·.,.,

.,.

.. _.::f"

tlfD$$ ·l!.ermttt •a$ M• c·pn~~cl~:rs a,pp;r().pr:t;~t·e~ If .1;\· l?#:P~,:J'ig ·~!¥~d;·ng

~~· ~.-.fJ'f,n;,i~·~~·~@! ~·n4 ~b9:)1'+t!ii.· tlt¢:• Ji::s:efi~y <\t:eotd'e n;Qt;. t:o b¢li a puht.i.o

,hearing> ~he '1D~t':~'¢tc:>:t' sh~il p~oV'ide the Regionaa Adtt~ini:stnatol?

~:Q.<l· all pa:rt:ies :t?eqttesting t.h~. h~al>:ing~ ~· l'¢-~~~¢11,·. t';i?:+~nat:toti. ot

;.W,.b~ 1il+~ . .li~a,~;rn,~ :t1'*'s t:~of; ilel~ ·h~trQ~e sl;lbm5..:tt±·n;~ th~ p:r~.f>Q'$ed Ff:Pl)gs·

)liEf:r:m.:t;t tp t;be. R~$it9li:f~'l. ~~1ltl~'$'tf?:~R·¢p t~:r aflp$>(1)vaa ...

-t~'l ~:e' '« ~~;g:p,i;i·$;~4 ~~l'J:$:S p~r;rn4:i:~ ~·s·~.tJ:"e4 wif;:~b.; :~ ,;pqpl+;~ tt@te.~~;li\i

:t~r .m(.)~,:~t~:e~. ·~~ ?; ~~~~·J.~: 9f' 't}b~ ~lib:li$¢; tiQ~:ic:re· . .,or· J?UP~±·Q l:l:eaw~n&~·· .a.

:~e~&!S•g!1f ¢0cP(~ q'f, i;,'ij~. • ~l?-Q~o·t$efl• Nili~s p.~~~i~ t{!'t~ll. b:~ transniiiited: :;;..

, ~¢· ~:h'¢ R~g~t?Xi~\J;. A:.~isff)?at~if~ ~;~~.~11~~~11:: ·~r:P~§: ~¢~m:tt l?t~ffq'hi• ~Alt¢'t~.~ ·lfl¢~b 0~ f#PPW' ·Pt ~~l ~t~l.;'¢m~itts ~eQ:ety;«'!:4: ,~,~:om $:)?;~ p,Jii~·~,tg;

no"1#:li;c·$,, a,;n!tf :t-l:J.I,i~>tte: ·~· l!,i-1ifi).cl;.lte• :be~~·iirl:~. '~~ ·Jii;t,~(:ti;,., a; ... '$tt'illma~~ :~~· a!i. i

Q:~~,~e¥;¢q~~ ··~tit)\{~. ,~i r~~;tj~~Jr ,f~~>·tt· 'a'P~Pr:~¥4~ ~k9 ·+§~~~~" '1t'~~ :NJS'PES f;)~~rm·~,~~

'·.XP~ '::l:.i~~ ~1." ~ ~:ttml'n~t~. :t:ftg,, U$~.~~'\t,~~ m~y ~t-ov~q;~~ ~.· ··v~M~~:;tm: t~~i',it;t..-

·~J.P:~ ·'Qitr· ·tiP.~ ~:n;~~e .mt-lii.~ :i'i~1.t~~i!;o· • 0:•!' •• -.. '··,,:,

~~'4;1 ·.~·· ~· ;p;r~p,~~~ ::t1ID\l~$'' ·:~~m!l~1i ·!i~, ti9:~: 1!~,~~~~~ ~;~~:# ·~ ,jJI~~~!~ ~'Q;t,:~;Q;'~ ·9:~ wb~r~; ·p;~,tt'~> g, op::iitt·!LA:~ :~~,.~~tn.~;o~ ''#:h'¢· I.ia;m~~it:9:*' ,~PJ~,t:;Jl:. ij~i11:~~

. .• ~~ ...

tll~ .. R:~~~-~n-a;l. A.~~·;i;J;l;t;r:a(;i.~w"~ A:t£~;&~~.:1;<>.~: ' NPDES \Ei[~tt: ··~~\¢:b\~· ··~~·

:;J:;et:t'¢"~: ~n~t ·t~~ :tr~q~9~~~4 \Nf:P~$; ~~f:m~~ ~$$J.ug<l ~~t~ ~JX~ 'I>~~;#li:tf '!1¥)t1Jce

~a$' :n¢lt ~~:~u ~·~~-~~·4 an~t ~~tt1l•$t. ~.t:l~li"9V'al, ttl ~s~·~· 'J$,~~ ~~1:)it!l$: ~P~P·m;i.:t:¥ ,;~

··· 'lto'¢: I"e!i);pe~t: f'()~ aJ?p~ov~~ ~h~:t:t. ;tn9:~y$ie .~·· eo-p,f ':Of: ~a11 llli:t:t~t,~·m.~

:'"'-·

... . ('l <re~~f lt'¢S:~c;J~na,.,~ ~tt~tt#il;t~tt~~:~~ .¢'ha,,tl re.¢PQ~4 ;ttdit~$A ~:i ,ey~¥·s :t~~m

~ . . . .

~he da~·e:· .:C)),t $"~:~:~rj;:l);t' r-?1' ;~bjit .:~~~;~~ .v~~.tl,~stil'l$,;: :$-'f·tJall '':a;pJi>~~-Y:~~· ~1;>!

~1K~'#~;· r¢· ·4~~ ·~J];~\:J?#Q.}?:q;~~·.: ·~~~m;~~··•; ··~t!.~~ ~JJ~$~~9~~w· !~~~stra;t<tJr· J!~;o;·

:$!~~~, P:(3, ..i~df :r<~·~1~~.· t,o,· j~~4,~,Q;~ •p~~tl\;i;.lili&~ il::(: <~~!;;J~·i~tl. ;~~~:-C¢JJC~J: ¢1;t' ~·ij.~

... :

;,:,

15 <lao¥"s ~ the lil~r$'¢::t:or ma~t #·~'sum~~- ~tt~r ve~if~J;;;~t:Lon of r:~·¢E!:l\:Pt Qf i;.l)t! J?~APP$¢& R~~1!J~;1;., vlit,4,<t;. ~ll¢ ~P.It h;~~ ::tlQ O.'b;M~¢~~ou 1::<> ti):~·

i:a:&U:a~e~i 'p.f: 'tn¢ JilFti!SS: ,p·e:vmi't •. ·•

~JJ> ~he A~~n¢·Y: -:~~@<l.l n~t ,+~~H~ ~- N~~;E$ p:e~m+t t;g~ ~ q,:+pc;p:~~-$~· ·

'i£9 W:h:~ch.· ~fti~ R~g~.Q11~~ A&m~~;$J;ft:~~~~ ~~l;l' •Q~j:e·~~~;q.,_ 1:~· ~~tt~lj~· :Pti:tl~\l~~~ "·' ·t:~ ~~W w[l~lit ·.to ·o:b4:e!fat~ 1'he ·r:e~rolutlto~: ·~Y ~-h~:. D.±:~:r~c;~.-~1", o:i" ths<s:e

. ~~~::ec.ti.Ql1s sna~l· · llE!• · ¢:t'>ilh"nu~~-~t:~~ 3;.~ ~:i~~ ijy. vh~ ·n~~.e~tot:? 1~~-t:t~:tii"

~P ~-~Y:~ i:P .~'fi~. R~l!$:9l!a1 A4mt~$~t~~~riif\~~ n9 P.~i?:lil~~· ~h~:~,t 'b~

±~~u~4' 'P¢~t:~r,~ ·~~4<'!:~1:i~~tr af)~rov;aJ. c{t s.uc1\t l1~$9)l;tl•P~i:9n -~--~· the R'$~$Ptla\:t,.

-~~mttiJ~~~:r~~9t: ~~, ~,~~~~ve:Clltf 1::~~f# .l'i~~~~(tot•,. :rt· P·~~ :n¢~9n~~ J.\~ittj'$~~~~/;5:1? ·~q:~~· :n,~t ~~:~11~m:g; 1it.$:Jtij~, .e.~t 4i4¥,e a&tt.~it! r:(;!:~f{<i:\P:~- ~w ·~b~

.:-;

'Xi@i:~~qt:O):l'·ri'~ ~~S\ttEtut:4;otl;;1 the ·Dfur.e,eit.e::r· m~~ 'aa1l·.a~$ :~~nd:~; :tihl\l $i; has

:».:~' :~:b,~~e~t~~l1 t;9 t:~g ~$!14~-Q!~ Pt. -~~; '~sfl~~t li~~'i:t t ·fm;!!l i}it~Y: ;~~~'~iii$· · .. ..

t1·J NO. :;t·$t~l! tib~: c;JJ2o a·a.~s ti~om :t;h~ .;~rt:~o\tirve: (l~t~, Jill t:h~s ,

~~~l!l~rtt, t,bEi . ~~s~Pn~:J. ;.~~~n:t~~~~#l~:l! -~-~~!L; ~'o~~~~~ ~~~- 'liJ:!:~¥~'· 'q~· )l;:i.~:. W~~h,t:$ ~~~ we:Yi:~l'!~ ;~lJ~\~:c;t; ;b;Ql :q,1)t ,c&~~:m;~: :'q:p~Q'A 't!he; 'l?;t'i:~p~J~:~(\l; ;:!J~,QJ;t?,

pe~m:ii. :C9r an~ aP,~~itJati:orr wh:tch-r:el~t~$: tomji~or di'l:i¢h~~.e's:~

, \O'. · ~~Q~P~ ro:~ tm# ~:Pi?~~9~.1t+qP: w~x~~li ~ti'v:q21;"!:~~· :t.he ,i!fi~¢lt~~i.t~' ~f ·:t;..q'l~~

· 'W~»'!i:~;§: o..ti ',g'iJl'$(t;;hap~~$· tP ;t))~ w:-a.t:e.-p:{'J · i£.·n-~:P:' ~nt.~~~$.•"Cit '~-r; ·~ii>~m, :~ :P¢~f;,tdfi

.. , ·.~·

·:···•-'~ .:.:·

.... ' tit if~i'Qitl~<$i>~~·!'s b~~tl;~r$~ ~he' R~~4;o.nal A:'Q.m:!h.is~~~~<>tt, $'l.\afli~ J?r~(ltt:~:lfl'¥

.~~¥~~~ t;~¢' ~~:~~n~~ itt" -~~. ~f?g:t~~,9~+ ~~~~ ~~~~~+ W'?'~¥-~~ ijh'P:~~ :~~t' / ,,?,~· ,P.!-tr11's':~!l>u~~,~t. a;$; l;til~Wt~t·n~ t~'h~ ·;wJ~~;~}1;\•: :iq;ft -~{~'~ $;~1~~~\\r:;f:tni~J ,t~~~r:i;i!~:s;,~~~'W~~~

-:tp :~at·~~ ;in <~~~i,~; ·~~ •tt :J;~l~#.· '~;~~'' 't;)"~!'¥~i.l?· ¢~t:~$~~j;~;$;.~; :~,;t~~-lli~'li.'~1Q!1"

;~ :

<i:'

t~pe$ ot P:erm.it$: 1lP.on ap :¢vg:t,uat:t,~m :<Jf t.he· Ai~~~t49''.~ p~~~t?~~~e :t,i);

:l.mt?rt:Ja:rtt~n.t•5:n& tne· P,~i!:m$;b p;:rA~:r~;,

•secti9n . :t21t • .Jt7 r~an~:missi.~n t9 1\egioh~l Admin1$t?atQ)j Qf .. J;·~'sue~',. '" · ·. · · · · ·. ··· · .. · •· · ·· · J'i~Pl<j$, Jte),')ni:tct>-1. .

{J..) Th~ Div:e(rto~ sh:all ~:ra~~m~.t t.o t::be Re~:i,onal Ad..n1$~~~~ra;.t;o~

·!t\it,~j e.Qpie§ or ever:~· :tEHhte:d N·l?}\}ES: p:em4i~;t- AtJ~;ent::Lon•:· .N•FDES ~~r·m~~ . . . . -. ~

~~~¢h~ t<:):g~t;~~~f: ·~t~~l) ~ttY' ~ti"Q ~l:l t~~~i•j ~Ql}.Cf;i.I~~p~$\1 f:;~9..4'4::t!:~fi1'~1~~·.~:~

:~~ r:t·~~~nt$!)ts. llll~¢:1'} a:r.~ a palft (t:f t:,tr~. N~s permi~· .~~· W:h$~¢1) q.:f.:;£~¢ft

:~)!¢ :a'~tho.:r-iz~jtit\~tt ·l;)~ the' Nf:p~ . .;p;e~m·il;~ 9'1: tli~ Q:\~>$.«.har~~ o·t:

;p~tl-iltf:l.nJ~$: •.

{~) IDhe: ·l:)lw:~tc/t;Q;r S.hatl ti'~nsimtt tihE!! ab:.Qxre :i;uff9wm~\~$'Qn ~it~ <·

th~ .$•atne; t.;tme: 't;.~e. NBl:iES pertn#;t. ts J•t:;~tJ;e.~ •JiJ.y; P:b~ A~~ne.~· to •t'b¢:

:~p·p:tl/:t~~P:;t•,, to,g.~t~~~ '#t:~;l) !¥ ~·qpoy oW: 't>P:e l)iire~:(~i$:z9~ :b~t:t;;:~~. :~:<:) ~~··

·~~::t"~:¢'ar:l~- torwat-4·5:n~ th<:! .:Nw.P'ti!$' ·~rx-~.t .•

.• :!f~~~~-o~P.~··~:· ~~~t>~~·~~S;·~~.:~~~· .. ··!il!~·~'E·~:~n~: , .\3.~-~~+Qr):, 12~.~:;~1,4~.,[ . ;'!?n~tk·.!>~f~~f.·f ···

·(~): :P:~J?l.»$t :¢On~ht<tteng .i~$i&ttaq 1;!.~· ~he 'A_$;l!ih<!~· :f!b~ ;an~ dl~;~~IgW$E!:

·g~iff<i~J.:~¢·4 ~¥· ·~ .. ;~~iS' J?~~~·t. 'W)l:te:b <~J i:~.· .n~11.: :~· •m5~t?t ·ct:$$c'l'l:~~$~·~

.• ,~:} w,fl·.~: :g~~;l¢~n:al 11\~m'!nl.s;fl;;li':$t:g~ .:te.q,ti·~st$'c,;' in ·v~it·~;n.g•i lp;~ ffii~~~~9~~g:·#··

•. ' ;<>~· •(:q:), ct>n't:ai::t¥5 :~o:~it6 p.ollh~a.rth$ t~·r ,;;bleb an .ettl.uent :$t·a.Vi•ija;~(l· ~lif

:~g.r,t. ~§JRg~+~~·ni:!§;~ .~:9; :p;%1~ ,.twt~·~:~t~:~~'P~ P~r.§.~4ti1r ·~~· ~~g~~~tt ~:om:,c~)'· ~t ·:th¢. Aet;-~ sl'l~ll. ~~;q~rc¢ mt:>n:tt-~1-&t)g, b~· t'b~ p.e~~~t~t:e:~. ft.o}) :~t;, ~:~a,.~~··

'tih~ .t~Jt.l.~11~~t~/'f

.{.~;}. ~j;~:\1 (Iii: ~l4,¥41t~ •!?·~~· ~~~5::$ ~~·· :{'$;~;:}' A$1.P:f. :thrJ tti'4,1;~~t~n~· .~9·A~111'if~t~~t

:·.•··

~-

.)

.· ...

-: .\i

; ...

~ .-.

.(a:)

~~iii!ll11~~ (b)

$~!:f~~!!~t:!r~,5L~:~ ~) !t1i£d~·~t=l~Jitt1tF~

(:~:} ~!;' ~ny t'l:m~. b~t:o,~~- ~-· ·:~n$;$ .p~vm$t• .&s 1$·~uedi, t·h~ :n~~¢9il:~:l.

:A.~i:tla:&t:Jta;t.q,i *f4'1 m~k:e. t:h:e ~.e.q:uest•S;. -s~b~:i'£1·~¢ :!iir ·_-pey;~~ftra;Jifbs l/(,h:) ~:

.~)J:e;; ~~') l1~:J:;$;i;.li. ·..: "i"<

tal W:)ie D.~:t'ee·tQr fib~.l:t :tl-~il,$ll\~P Pco•- th~: lt~~:iltJ-F@:l Adm$nit.·&t~.?r~¢!'Jt'

a·a:~~ .ati~m·:t:~'teii ·lil~ :llt;P];)jj$ ~:elftmftt:·e~.$ \\)1\, -~~3it~:Qt~tj~\'t';¢~~P,:~:. neP,'otr:•it f!.~~s,

.~.tt;~il~~ §J <~} .~~:6·~~~::~;tit%: -~2~$~i;J- .~·t: · ·~)}~· ~~-pp,t,4ffi.t: ··11:'9;rm~ t~: ~,~~i .-

•:tl~~.ito.n~+ A~-nfuni~.t.rat":r·:~. At!i;~lil~.!i;:Q:n} p~~:ti~~n~e.'-·',;S;~.(t~~Qn ~ ~it§~~e.~~.n:t .

:tt~\vi~rs·iffp,, 9:r *b~ ~~· .. {ttr.et¢'·t •entr:w i~~:Q ''!1~h:~• ·q;ts'F' ·iJiata- ~y(st:en; .•.. .. ...

.. J}l~;~·1·~~: l~ilL •. ;52 .(·~:1 .. , .. J~~F~?i-d:;·~fJ .5!-~m ·M~>~i}:•?:r;t~~ .~~1f:~w:~~~~~. -~¥:~. ~~-~~·i.~;~'~i t>ur!ng ·t~e tperiott ,cit' 'a WtU!is .p.etmd:t: and' ~~- ~nresolved !iti&a~

--t!5,Jf!l)~ ~P9l)· pn~ ~i.:J!~~~.'if#:ct·t!~i.~· :'P~ 11~~-a~t~A:l1~ -~~~~h'~~~§~~¥,_ ~l.le:; ·p~¢pt.,(.fP' s)),a;J::l no,'t;:$t0¥ .a;ntt ~~ClJ..lil.itt'~ 1¥n~ p~ii1:~~P~{e;~·<·t!:P ~i~·.en~ thg•

, ~()t>lit~l ~.IW-¢e ye~~ ;x?~~:e-n~~'Ott of 'll;P:'J ·~e.~on4z~·: 9W :Jn~t}jgt:~itin~-ac~.i;\ril~

'":.:

;.:_

-~---.

: .... ;':

..

.. ~t±;/a::a~:::~~;;::!=~:~71::::t:~s~~r!~l. - . . . . t

P~~m;t:~·~¢g;~ :1.·11 rt~D$~· l'tiP<?l'tj,ng fq.l"mS. a;r:t(i o~h¢~,. fi:>l:!WS ~'4PP'ly~m;: fuPn,1t:pt1!'1~

.dp;i;a, t9r ~-~$~~9+~ ~~.t~rc¢~~·~1> o~ reme~:l.al actiC>n~ Wll.~ nt~e:¢t9r'

:~ll~!ti 'transmi~ ~~; t·~c$ lt{:!,$..,.()~1 A.'4m;tn,is:t;l?a1;~l:' ~· eom:}ill-&arte:~ $~q:t~:p.t):¥

;E:p:~~w~~~mw~~ I?$*'~:~~.P~·~,. :e;~p.~~·~· <>.;f ·1¥J:x~ ¥9~ill# v.Q$:~-~.n~~~ ~~t;~'tt ft~~ ~;y:~J;:4~~4f:~.'li.t

:c«i. ·:~b~· .a.·ti~'l; «~ ·9:$ · .. ,;Jle· :m~nt'll'$ t>:f Fg~;rrl:.IAJt¥:;:! :Maw\~ ·A:g~q.at a11d- l-T9¥.emb~t~

·~~ g$ ~o •<i.a.,s' ~:d:·Q~ to• ill:~ d~i'e o\fl aut;~. ·~-?:~'plii,'P,,: ~the~~ thiZi. 4~t·~ .$l'J~M'U$

~·~a-~ ~f;f4.9-~~:cti· ~;;.L~~~· ~l\ ~:lle \N¥P.il~ '~li'm~~·:s, :a'#e: ·~~~;~~~$'4i •. w-~~~~

,m~n$;'t:91':tm~ &at:.~ ~')):q:,~t'til~t :et:t~u~ntl. ll~mt:ts a-r~· e~q~~;4fi!~~.) ~~~·· :p~r:~¢<tqil

:e~~~.;J, !&~rttd.if!~ tn'e: '~;;t;flu~'itt 'f±nttlr$: e'xo:.~¢til~tlj <ies'et'·lt~e· b;r:1:,~:-tl;y' •;@~('

'~~~~~ii~ 9~ -~lMi;~,~~·~~ ~~1:-.~(;).n$: ·'Q& ~}1~ l-l~P~ I?;e,~in$~'P'~~ 9F ~.•i1.~ :4't~tle.v

~9, ~~~!~~ ~-1?· ~;g9~9~ ·¢qm~,·l1t?.:nPJ~. w~t:.~.A""~~ ~~,m$~·$ ~~i;ij ~,~$:¢~~~$.;: ~#1 ~t,a~j;:$;. rw~¢b; te:n($: :t:p; e~·:tain ·.l!l:r 'm4ldi$~t:e; ar:r !itn~\t:atlQ':e: ow n&rl""'

c;~rn~1,-;~~~~j- ..

'•t:~l · -tf ·t~~ :~~~9;~:~~ ~~~~X1~~:t;ri!l·~· 't);l~~· ~n.t .Q:~~:Q;ii:~~Ql?.) · ~17· ·~~~ ;p~~mili: ~"'!:.

dj~t?, ::~tib:licc:i~~·ow~:e;~ :l~~~~itm'~fi:t ~r:orks i~ ~~it:.~~~gt:fri~;! ih·~ sila;J;;I,. ~¢~~~¥

:t;~ .f:(~~~~tli~W A.;tttta:n~ij?t{*'~tpp' ~C1. ~l!~· ~~It~t· ·~q?-~1 ;g~tt:~$;.&:~~ t,~l.(-~:Q.t;

~g;;t~p~ ~~~~'fiili~ ~~ .~tl'ai#:~~~l?$$ ~;<? l'e:~'tii~.$'ti;~. ·q~·j)·~~t¢:Q~~1:it ~·ttfj

~r;;rti~().tl:ttt!;$-.f;:¢n. ·O:f' <~J:i:Jl'~;~'tant'S ·fn:t;~· su¢n, ·t:n:e~~merr~ ~~~: h·u· a· ,~tti~'f¢.)

nr;>.:i;· ~»~~;t~:~ni] .'$~.~~ ~:~~~~m~t~;1f w<li~ks :p:r.;t9t> 111.? ·~f!~ t~t;t~:tn\~t 1tl)a/t :~~~ti't ~:~hJf;t;~:t9n: ·waa vl~~~~~,., . ,

.. ~.':

~'"~' ~~~T#;t~~:' ,m~~\~ ~\P\Qn li~-li!.i!¢·~t .¢f '~'A9' ·~.~~;t:~W:~,~·:t fj~~-t$;~, :~tt m.Q'(;fft:f.!~~ ;~ .;g;fihe.dUfw.e' ;qf. .'G~m~)i·;l;anee· $t1i> art ~ri:~\ij:p;(l: J{Et>li$, ·~~~:Wn!$:·v $* ~:$

_-;.·

·.:.t.

·-~.

..

.=.~·

: '~.

":

~ · ..

:A.:. I<.·

flQc:>.d~ mat,erial$ $h<>~:ta~~:~ 'P? .c>tlt~~ ~:t~~urnai~~n-cl::!';;>' '?'It~~ w@ch th~

p'$~t;tefi! h:;t.s litt·I~ ~r rro ()~l'it:ro.l:) $*'.:t$tf5 ror $Ucl1 r~v:t~~r:>n ~n<l. ir

l~itb;i;.Jl 3:0 d.ay~ :fPllP·~~iP:l:fS; r~c,ej,f,'t .rg.t ·notiG:~ fr,om ·tJ·~~ Dirll!.ct¢1P ~

~lie Re~io.nal Adm:t'n.i£?ctrato:r: ~oea: 11o:@ .o'bJ-f,i;¢·~ !in wrii?:j;;p~· to ~n~ -~-

Se¢~tl~Ti ~~Jt-..• JJ(b).,(l;l .... : .('Em~~$'~il¢.~ ~9~~~~~a~~Pif)~

!,r~~ P~~=f~¢-~9l? ·-·(tl?-'' ;p¢:ff ,~-a~:Ji~;to:i1.~~4 t:~p;r:~'$~Pt.t¥:11f:ili~¢: ._ $~;~);.+ n9t:tfY

;the. 1t~gd:Qtt4:l A<t~n:~~·:t;.~~~A~ .j:))': ~·tll:e;~~qne :~s· •s·Q:$n ~$ he- it~ not~tfi'~~:t

C}tr :aq:~ E).'p:6:u.~1 oa:> t;:~~~~.~~n:~'fll· •@'~~~;r.iJr;;wfi\E;~ti;J~ t~:o ~he; ~~;~~ub op we+:f:a~e .. . :~

·r:tt· :P~~~~eitt~ l'~~ll,l~:~!'IG t~~:J?m. ~1:1.~ !~i\i$'~~r·Ps'~ p·r P~~J;~·$ilil;'!1~,~'~ ~¢

ll!:~e~,1?..P~ .q~- ~:t~ awtb'o~tt·¢.~~; p~pre•s·~tat;i)!e .•sh,al~. :~t:;U.$~:~ :«ih~ ~(;£;).¢,;;;.

~bt?t;¢· 'fl,i~p~p:~ ,;ii~ft~:~i'~¢:~ iip #{x~,~ (!~;r~n:~ :ij~~~Q~;tt; ·~rtii+ :~~d. ~~r¢<,iti,ltts

-1i~~~~~~t -~~t~~;t.~~¢~q;~ ·:~*~' ~- ~~1;,~)t)y: ·t4!l!~t ·ne.~$.~n~l;.l~;t;~j;i~l1~r\t:<l·P'~· :re¢l~JhPne :¢Qnt'a;~.t, :ma~~ J)g Q9~ w~~l¥ ~~mlie:t! -~he' '.tit,~:t:t'l'dJ~;1t o'itlft~e;e·$ ·:t!!l1!

~~

~~¢;~,~~tt; _,l~~1?·~-ta;~_ ...• (~~~%~~~. fi~~~:a~~-~~t ••• ot: .. -¥~-*-tw~a_,n~~: .,~t:Jt~·JI~:;;.~~l· Wf:i~: R,~~:~il;J;,t; .A,~tt-¢~'~a:~9~ -$~~~+ ~~al1:~~·~ -~- '!t1n~ ntr¢~t~r ~nt ,.

~ol,i~f~$-~ 'b¢t;hP:t:ca.l ~<:>~~t;:rpl) o~' :req:u1rellief1ii$ ·p~p,mt,tg,gatf!tl by 't~~

Ahr:il!ll$:tna'tw ·$f:J.;. ~~~'a;t1&U:~ :ts~~ pti:t!:$-~til:nf» 'iiW~· 'J;:bj ~~t &:r ·~ «~z.·~·¢#~Y~IS :ls;l!~~4 ~to l;l~A I.t~~*~fi~;:J; ~~'f~,¢'fa$. c.c;?.~~4~~t:P;t;~ t;f:t~· 43.:~wo$a1

·· .:P'f · P;~'';ta\i',t~Pi~:~' ,.$;l1t.tt :w.e:l:ti't; ~

-M,~~t!if4¥~1~ ,c~l '.~tt~.t!r.:1l.¢i ·n~:~~"~~q, :~$ ' ~4'#~ :fijt' m~;~;rj,l! ~~~;~~~~~~~~,H~: ·w~~~~

'·""

-~.

... ·.· 'L ;-•··. -::.: .. :: .: ·.>·

~h~J;:~ ~i~ g::ty~tt p.:td.()p:t,Jiy in ~l:!q#e~;S$~~· a~cl ··~· ~:ch~&#le :('.qJ;> ~~#b

~.ocessin~;~ ~lso aA~taened is ~: ~$x. mor:\t;ll s~neali~e ¢~vet->1~ ail.

per~Q,;:t,¢ t•o. 2:):¢-· .p~.q'Q~ij~~:cr ifi ttl~· ·~!::X; !11~1ith Jli?Z.±oa. ~+'~ ·~~i t~~ f~r$·t;·

P~::r>.t of vl1e .s.ch;e:qul~ aiUlt;!-4. ~t l.$~t\;l;ng ~ll pr~ncipa.,l :9,Jl4 tl1¢

~a~'orit~ Qf ail rton ... prine.ipal. ~;!!DES pe:rmits in th~ S•taJ~·e '0:1:

~~l:ln~sot,a l)y P•~J~~mb~~ ~+~ +~'l'l~ and ~ll rem~1n1!l&' n~m~:P:¢~;n~;t,:P~+

$J:~J).-~$1 J!);¢:t!nti'*"'$ b~ Jun~ 3;.0; ·;L·g·•nt. •mfi.f: S¢.h~i!I.~Jle: s}la;li. b·~ ·~·~~~m~~~~:

\~~ 1£:~ .Di;re.€dr9rr 'Pn a ~uar'te~.tty b:as:ta t.her:(il«t~¢~· to 1:4~n:~~£4 'tile

;>~mq~:·qCI:gf> Qf ·~,b~ lifl:~~ J>ei1mi.~s· 'WC> ''b't:i p~¢e~ss.~·g u~~l:l l:!~~. il!~~~t~

:~;¢ -:t'§)a;u.;~Qi·~ A ·comr of: ~~~h· ·!i{i;ta.·r~~~~:Ai~ !l~;ft:~4ul·e. $lia.4:a Qi~· ~9~Ji:.~i!·~~:

.;,... 'llY: ~·~ J)l;ii~~~;~ to th~ R·&~~ctnal A&m1ni,$t:r,at~r f()Jt :r~view~ -~· :.; .

f¢~. ~~~: x~m¢)~~'!19~ ol' Pt;$~~~pre;ijt . in~~ li¢ mp~:t~:t:!¥~: 'l?t ·-·~·r.t~··

~(':~t\9¥' .~n~. tia~· J!f~:~~~a~ J\~m·:t:xta\~$~a.ii~ro: fol~Lotltt.B.tt t~b~:· .:P\¥.P'i:t~.tl· :tril~~~~~ t¢ ~va);®t·~: ·t~~ :$t:ate 's: se~:E.i:on ~~o:a(·JiJ; Pl>!)g~gm. e#J;tt~t':Ji:t:ttatt and •t.h~. -~

·.1

Jl~~~~p$, ·~~ ~~· $}~Q:pg~~1ll; ;'~FS •ir\~~\l::i;a~±():ft :O,n ·t'&:e'• ~·il:~~·~· ~·t 'ft~§jJ:e& '··•

i. .

~~~~~~· •J:i;tt .. ·.~~~- -~~.~~-pg;~.·~ ·w:~~- n'~~~lll·~& r~~·(jf:dJ~· ~~A¥. ~·~ ·4;~,¢;;; ~fi~tl

.~~~ :¥· ~e~$t:!lit 'Or :;a() ci~S,· ·th•11e>w•i·~··: ~h,~ ~¢at>~.ll~s ·~~:t ·~~·t an~ . :-·.;.~

~~~&~ 'tiP. •$!iiM~~1; ~C1(1'~:t,~~l1~i- :w;r:S:,tt'Ei'l:i· at~tem$n'ts· -~v~ ·~(), ;p~~·&~tit tti:~ws~ ~ -~

·::Q~ ~~:t4~¢.~1"'t~l!&i~-- t§ ·P.~~~~' ·t~.~~lf!m~Pf· p~a~·~¥~t~.4.. ·~~· ·tf~~ lt!i'i~!~~A'· ,.

n.~Aii~'$·· lnt r:e:vlsii~n$ .f:tt; th.¢ A:~®m~nt r~.lll9w7r~~ t~a¢}i. :o.1! th~

~~FJ~;l:¢; -~f,$l'i~~S~' q;t;! q~h,;,~?""+~e $it:f~':t). l;):e f!tintt:l+:*ft·~~· :p~qi;i¢!Ei_q ~o· . ..-'.·

Yt.~l::-1(~P:Ss· .~np~oy~d: ~·¥ ·~ll~ .~g:~·~~Y;) :~.6(1 ~$gn¢t1 .15f •th¢' Oit~ii:f~ftJ~~;~ $i~·ltl. Chaii'x>ntal!t at: the A'en¢y'~· ana ·~he' !t~~nal. ~~~1;nd;$t~{l,~a~ ;l'I>.~Q\F t;Q

. ~~~'''t~f'&"it~~ -9;l; :~:b~ ~~9!B~~-¥tflia~~Q,'fi'~' ;9:f -tl)¢ ~~~,tgn:g+· ~~t'n~~tt-~t;:tt.or

-~ tP.¢ ,!~~iil§itfxr~~Q':t ,9;r: ~!!;~A. ,:t;g~· ,$~:\t;t.~w a.1l<l 4:P:P~~\@l,Ji. ·~Wr¥ P:~r~M~~r:

-~·

~-· =.~

··1t.·.

..

R;~:~~ ~==~:t:::t:~~~:: :::~:=.::toP ot EPA. :tr the Aam:tnistl!'t!;ttir or E~A deterntt:l:rea that at)~ provi.si¢1'ls·

·pi' such ?LJ'itt'e~tn~nt;s· do ~J;)t qqi}f~rrP:i" 't:§ ~;~~ r.¢qt1j;;;¢eme~p~ pJ: s~~;t:~-~~:

402{b) <tt '~llE; AJO;.~ .• ~. or Guidet·inf:~:.f .b:e. sha:l':L n;o.t$-ify· ,1;,;~~· s'tai;~ and

ttl.¢ 'ite,~~,qna::l .. A;§.m~;ijj;~~r'~t?p q:f · ·.·~~ r:~"~~d9r,:~ · or:· ·.mo(U:t~~atffi~).);~ w'b:.#.¢·~

mu$¥ .P:~· m-a,&¢. $n· ~ne· wr~irt.~~p.. ;~:g~~;~m~~fi.1Ht!

(~.1 Wl'tts '~~~;(#meil't shall be eJ:lns:tx-u·~~ ·~~$~gra~ tP 'f;·l;t~ l.aw ot

tfne tli¢:l(;·~i $~~~~~~ .i~9 ·tll~. 'S¥~~~· · ·~~-. ~~**~ti<>t~. (~) ~:tii'f:l ~~~t;~fu~n<t. ~-Q:gll :ft.~·~~ ~·ifti1rt:;~. Ytf·~~, ~h~ ~~t~ of .;ap~~rio)'V~:f;

ot ~t.nneso·tals> l~DESi• ,pe'rmi-t P':t!~'ram:obf··1fb'fe .A4m$aits:~t;.ati.q~ ··l?M'~~:t.l4nti . ~

~ti S¢,ct;J,;on 4()2!~). "

.:(6·.).·. : This AP.:~eme:nt ma.·. ~".. ~~ .. :. t ... /e.·.·.·~.: .. ~in. ·,~n.: .•. :a .•.. :~.-.:.:~.·. 4.·.· ... · :b.· .. y_:.:' ~h. :.·e.: .. ... :A.·. •'Cim.: · •. :.~.1'.!.:-.;;t:~.t. • .. ~.a ... · :fi;~P. • .. ·•· .- · .. ·· . ·_._:,:::: ... ~: ;_·- ... -~1',',:-:.·-~-· _-.., .... ::_-.:~· . 'iJ; .

~Ul'$~~~nt'· ··~~· S~,~·~;~:p~; ·40'2-•~tt:'l ¢'ft th~; .Ac::t: .• ~Q~·, :·i<f t'h:~ p~~§·~p,~ !l.e:Yd.tt. <fl>t:

~~ P~st~~- ·~t~~l:\t~~ :.~~4)~ ,~~ ~~ li~P-~~:. :.1?'~~!~. Ii~Qlr:~ C!•~$\~4~~~:·

·~n ~;;;r:r,~'•~~?;~~~nt~ttt; :~a. ~~~:j;~t:4 i~));~~:~n~4~~1t+:Y~ ,~-1,f~~. li~l!i~·i¥' '~tr-~ni

$,(t; i!t'!t;pr'$: ·v~~$t.t'.~U .'}l¢5t¢~e· <to· :~in~ A:iifm'l·rfid;;st~a·t:P~' ~n.a :a~~*~~~~- Aiilm~~· '·

·~;ij.1fl?·~~g~ ~· Wh,'$'S ~li¢ei;m¢.n,~ ~~Y' i#i m,9,~~11:~·~~· '~* ~$r· ~t'm~ ~p:¢;il: _:-~:

··~1"1 $':h,~ ·~~:~$c<i).f,tai l#~mOCti:i~strat.G~· ·ma-~tr wa~il\re· .fn w~~;t'ifil:l~ Xn:$~$

.• ~

~~~p,~,s :t,t> .P~e.e±.¥·~.~ ¥~Y.::J;,¢'W:) .o:q~?~·~\: · '!?'?·~'. f4tii ~'t,)ipi!i~:#l ~,:o.:~;, •t;o~Pi.$:•$. ~p,~a:tp:a~: :~ 1- >i

t,j.l:),it~;,. nc;.t.:i;.p,~s ·~n,<t p~tip:Q.$.etf.~llil~~· p;[email protected]'$~a. ,,~;t «+i.t~~:$:~~~. t~~~!!?,t, ..... ..

o~~ .si~'e$ l-t~;t·l1~rt ·anw ~~t~~~~ o·t ·point ~:s~oU.~c;e;~ $~'~n W:P:~~t'en ·t-l.~f:¢:1? .• ' •. #lt:l~~ ·JD;~: ';~a:§~~~di J?:t: •. -~lil~. ,~~g~e>~~'t ... 4~~~\S!9Jt~4~:~r· I?:~fdr.e; t;:hiii; .~e;·~;n¢:Y· ;

¢an is~;y;e: .a;: ~Pfi$.$. :~:eri,ln'$t wd.;~·h~~t; .$'~~ .~11!:1li?pv~l-o: 15~· 1ktJ.~; ~ye;~t· }?t J :~l.i~h l'l~1Ai:t~~·: ·w~~~® ~~.~ :t;·~ ·~0\ti;i;p.na:t .Ati~i'l'li45itll!f$t:OO\',f ~~~. ,#,&,~~~:~

: ... -;,) ..... . ............... ~..;.:::: ... . .

:.;.· -~

a~;tJ.;: f un1Sil s~i!J::l~9Jl¢~t''. ~~~~~P ~i>~~.¢~ te> ~h~; ~~\l#r'at~ . .• .... •.

l{eg5~on~:t A.affiih±i'it~~~:gr, dtsey~·nti~nue -u.~ijinsli"ti:M?in~ .eop1es ot s\l~h '

, tq;mtls t:o. .. ~l!le l{!llg;\;<?n~;L .f!.qm;tn:ts:tr~t'QI' as otn~J:'~.t~~t:! ': p)j~t.i..c.ltt:,~:l hex-e~h"

..... ,_t .. '. ·.· .. ·.:.::.>·

.:~

··B;:r:.,~tq~~~~!~ .. A{lEl4¢~ ·•.

·~.·

:~

.:""!

;.,.

.... ,--:

·:.· -~ .

. .... :: "i:.. . . ... . . . . .. "~.:'.

AUG 3 1. 1975

·t~O :ioO.liH<l J:!!:AU!J\t'PN $1',

t;,..!iCAt."'~·,o~ ft .. l .. ~N :'l~S f..t'S~.,.::;

~1«\ Petet"" Gove;, ~xecut i ve lli~·ector Miritlf!$ct:: PHlut;icn Con~rol Agency ~93!1' t·~est to~rit,y no.arl BK . . Ro$¢v)ll~ r Mit;n~sqt·a .· 55113

·o$ar Nr. &QV!li~

K.·~.

~~t~~n;n~0~.t~~~~ltl=i:j~t!llb,~~g~~~tit~~m~J~~t~~~~g¥~~!~o~;~~·~::.l~rttt~~. State o'f·t·HM'U;$e;.~.:.aft1:!r h.aviM .. P~~par:tto a c.··· · . •• submi:sstfor. itrtd.

mr~[:i!!~!=.:~ltlf:~t~~r

==~ii~J!iitil!:~~~L •bt tile R~gi·onal· A<i.ulii:li'strat~r:

-~.. .·!. .. ' . . . .

:·}~li·Jf ~z;t~~~Itt!w~~~·. ~t!~i~=~Er~g:k:J::~~k:~:r~~~~=~ . . n:ot exceed the ·amounts and cMdi'tlon$ · autn:ot-i·aadr by the · · · oa~ve<w~dver~ r.t:Ug · · · · · · · ·· ·· ·· ···· ·

l-~=~~~:~~ '~i=~~~~ ~0

2

b. That. each public notice issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control P.g?.ncy fer .Perf!lits covered by the waiver include the follm'ling statement:

11 Pursuant to the Naiver provisions authoi'ized by 40 CFR Part 124.46, this proposed permit is \;lithin the class, type and size for 1'/hich the Reg·ional Administrator. Region V. has \•taived his right to review, object ot· cor.ment on this proposed permit action."

2. The foregoing does not include \·laiver of receipt of complete copies or NPDES applications, draft pennits, public notices of permit applications (and any required fact sheets), notices of public hearings, and copies of all final NPDES permits issued, including final permit modifications. In addition, the foregoing

·does not include a Naiver of the obligation to transmit complete copies of NPDES applications and of NPDES reporting forms to the national data bank, nor the right to receive copies of notices to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency from any publ icly-m'lned treatment works, as detailed in 40 CFR 124.45 {d) and {e).

3. The Regional Administrator rese1·ves the right to terminate the foregoing \'Jai.ver, in \'/hole or in part or with respect to any specific ctischa1·ger, at any time. Any such termination shall be accomplished by the Regional Administrator, in writing, and a copy o.f such written termination shall be ·delivered to the Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

·~. The foregoing \'Jai ver sha 11 not be construed to authorize the issuance of permits which do not comply ~1ith appljcable provisions of Federal or State laws, rules, regulations, policies or guidelines, nor to relinquish the right of the Regional Administrator to petition . . the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for review of any action or inaction because of violation of Federal or State laws, rules, regulations, policies or guidelines.

As part of EPA responsibility to evaluate the State operation of the NPDES program, the Regional Office will continue to rev1ew and comment on perwits not covered by the \ota i ver as ·"IE! 11 as se 1 ected minor permits covered by the waiver and to determine the need for periodic public meetings similar to that held on May 5, 1976.

I believe that the granting of this waiver \·till bring us closer to the achievement of the goals of the National Permit Program. I also believe that Minnesota has an excellent opportunity to accomplish these goals while also operating an active program of public involvement.

-------· .... -·-

~ "" . ' . ' ..•

AUG311976 3

I \'/ish you the be5t success in. this endeavor and look fOD·Iard to the day· \•/hen all discharges to l•!innesota,\'iaters are in compliance with their NPDES pennits.

Sincerely yours,

/'/1//- ·~ . . ,~-v-/'fccZr(--.:?~t:.-

Gearge R. Alexander, Jr. Regional Adr:iinistrator -

· ...... ·~· . ' .

•• • '. J-= :: I I: 1 • 1 ~.

'"f: .. -'.' /r, ', . .,. .... ' ............ t; •. , .. '"' ..

,• .. . . . : .. ·~. . '\. ..... •, --~':. ~·· .....

.. ,'1 :

·. r i .· _,..;

·i:·:

l

~.~~~:-,,·,::) ')':'~~ W~to,U~'TQl\1/ ~~ ::@'.4~

"()no,.at;le ~.U4Y :PerptcdJ Governor of MinneSb:ta S:t-. P~pi;,~ Mi Jin~~g~: $$15? . .

n~~,f:-' 1¥)¥irtt•:r-· P~rP,i:~h{

-:.:::::::·::. :··-_: .: -: ··:::: ;::::·:\>.::·.":-

9 Di''~i$'8

.;~M·a\.t

~'~-'~(~) ~g,.ppy ~-

~::

,, J II'

~ .. · ... · O.,_v.i;t /Y~·If · • . .,. F '"'\~~~~~ ..

tB 1 ·UNi.TEOST-A'Tf£$.eNVIRONMENTAL PROTEO'TioN.AGENCY

.. ;.i..:

~ .. -.

' ~~!~iii4;,_,~H WASHlNGTCm. (,):f;. aolloo

uoottrl;lble (\lJi~tt u .. Qu~e Go•ve1:ner ot .J.Jtnneso'ta · ·St .. :Paul; lltif.lnesota SSlS.$

near Governor,;

J. .UL .1 61979 ... .

lt . i-s: :w:fth gre·~t ::•1:e~~9l;·~ tl'i*·t tqq.:ty l ~m c:tpprovlng :the

=::r:;i;~~i!:~a~~~tgil;l~;kj£HE~~dn~,

IJl~l~IIIB!Il!~; ~~9'~¢>1'l V ·a·rttl :tile i4lnpeso~.Jl ~~lltt.t~.on (!.qfl~~o:.t 'll<J'~tj~ '~lt~q!;· I !M:sQ lj~v-~ ~P,l'~91f~'d .· {oopy enel:os·ea·)'~. · · · · · · ·.

•·

,.

"":·;.

~-~··-.:: .:.

:tQ ;~q:(}.~fr~ ~p~~~y~,t ·~t: ~· l Q~~ra~~labe you and

Fsl »oU,l41 lt• · Con:l•

~:~g~as tl~ eoi:ft;le:

...::.

' ~-.. .. ' <· ~ ... ·io>~·~•.; . .<O<V !>":"!'~

. . pr.Q'¢~$.~;.

: , .. ' ··:•·'\. ·.·.;, ·· · 'k ,. ,·1'·:: ·· · . '' • · · • · "-.. · · · · · · · · · .·:·.t'ii'· ... , .. · · \T'··'i\iie'.! · • · · ¥· ·'f··•. · · · · · .. Y · • 'nti+f~( T.OS··:S;tata rS,ial .. • ... '!JOt TS·SUS~ te:lS:S·ue;, .• o:t !tiJO(IiH:.Y -a<IJ!i nPu~J. ·petl!llt.~: :Qt: a ;,tYI~J·Or tvxr~

Sect:ton 4oa.6. ~ati.onal. Pt~trea~nt· Standards; .. cflt~90:rical Standard$

~t~1::-t:::=;;rti; ~~!:t:4rJ{:i~~:~§~: for tM:s de~ennin~tton\ . Th~ State ~lj~'ll f~flri;l its 'fin~ing$ :tog~t~~r with .~ copy Qf ttie· req\}e$t tl,n~ ne~$sary $J,f.pporting inifoma·tl()P to 't;h' u.s. ·£PA Regi~mal . . , Enforcement Dtvisi'on Director for ¢0.nc~rren~~"' IT tne Enfor<:etriertt Divii'sion Oirector g9es not jl16dify the. Stateisdeqt~:ipg wif:htfi ~Q 4il.YS aft.et• r~t::~ipt 1;11. ·· · ~ 'J;U~

~$~]~~:ii.~Jifi~~!~1L~~~~

M_is·(i~lia-n~ll);is:

TM ;S.t~te $.;MT1 s~l)mtt' &li'$J 9f PPTW$ ~e.q.!.t}ri'-n9 p'fe~h~a.tro~n.t~. i,derr~ifyi)'lg tho:~~~ lll,U.rti'cip~littes with flo,w$ gr~&ter than ~ MG.O an~f less than 5 MGit se;pa-~atel.y.. This.

§S1i;~i~~f~~1i!t~iSf~~i!~~L~::·9

i!l!!3~+!t~~=·=""!v~''1f~t~~;~~~~

~~~~(!:;t~I:&V.ii~ii~l~ ~~i~r~~~Stt~5!i!n1oS1: ... ~ .. ~.S:ii··!JrtL~Jl~~~~ THJ'$.: 'M,(),d:i~ft¢ll.iilM ~HJ -~~~9m~: ~f'f~~!tv~ ·-·rrp~tJ ;{(PP-~~V:~J q-f ~hJ4·J\~mt~i;$'.+r~~P~~;;

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS

230SOUTBDEARBORN ST. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 ·

DEC 2 4 198't

Gerald Willet, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

Dear Mr-. Wi 11 et:

RBPLY TOTHB ATI'BNTION 01'1

.5WQP

. On December 15, 1987; not.i ce of approval of t~e State of Minnesota NPDES · General Penriits Program was published in the Federal ·Register. Enclosed is the amendment·. to Memorandum· of Agreement signed by both· Agencies. Also enclosed is a copy of the letter to the Honorable Ruby Perpich approving the program and t)le .memorandum from u.s. EPA Headquarters· concurring with the R~gion's approval of the state's General Permit .Program. ·

The. General Permit Program is an important ·addition to the NPDES ·permit program since it provides a less .involved procedure for pennitting groups of dischargers with· essentially the· same type of waste. ·

If you. have anY questions regarding this matter, please contact me.

Sincerely yours,.

Enclosures

cc: (w/Enclosures) Russell Felt, MPCA

\

. 'IP>J@liKW!JPfD· In JAN071988~

MINN. POLLUTION CONTROL ·AG~CY

~~~ ~~r~~I®~.~· -ras Mxw:sso"TA ~o~ · c6Ni'aon AGENCY

.At.fnY'if tJNl~BD STATED · ENVlRONlofJ3~T~ .. J>'R0!l1ECT:tON ~GBNCJ.Y:; I{!J~l.~~ V

IJ;!?I~c;~~~~~-v: -~~·Jil~~~-~:~~og: ,=~~&~i~::~!enceraa f!lEU:~t 'l'fil~k .·~ll· ~t'an$1iii~t~4· 't~t tJ!~ ~9+·*.QWil1'!

~~~~~r·~~·~

;«dJ;!t$=--i~:-~~1= lil!~ ~·.~~~:~~~~<\~=:;~~ lf~~: ;~~~, ,;g~¥~tllf:JQ~: (Z:~;W~'Q~, :~~~¥#

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

May 1, 2000 RECEIVED MAY G 8 2000

Mr. Francis X. Lyons U.S. EPA REGION 5 Regional Administrator OFFICE OF REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RegionS 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604

Re: Addendum to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Memorandum of Agreement for GLI

Dear Mr. Lyons:

Enclosed is the Addendmn to the NPDES Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The addendum amends the agreement to ensure that the provisions of Minn. R. Ch. 7052 for the Lake Superior Basin are implemented in a manner consistent with the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System required by section 118 (c) (2) of the Clean Water Act.

Also enclosed is a letter from the office of the Attorney General of Minnesota certifying the legal authority of the MPCA to interpret and implement the provisions described in the addendum.

The process of implementing the Guidance has been a long one, but it is a pleasure to finally complete these protections for what is arguably the finest water body in the world. The real work is still ahead.

Sincerely,

~~¥ Assistant Commissioner Commissioner's Office

GW:jmn Enclosures

520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TIY) St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato •. Marshall • Rochester • Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us

Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least ~0% fibers from paper recycled by consumers.

;,

ADDENDUM TO THE

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

AND THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION V

The federal Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (hereafter Federal Guidance) required by section 118(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et. seq.) is set out in 40 C.P.R. Part 132. The Federal Guidance identifies minimum water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for the Great Lakes System to protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife. The Federal Guidance requires Great Lakes states and tribes to adopt provisions consistent with the

Federal Guidance for their waters within the Great Lakes system. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (hereafter MPCA) adopted Lake Superior Basin Water Standards in Minnesota Rules chapter 7052 as Minnesota's response to that requirement. Chapter 7052 became effective on March 9, 1998. EPA has conducted its review of Minnesota's response for compliance with Federal Guidance.

The Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V (hereafter EPA), and the MPCA for the approval of the state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (hereafter NPDES) is hereby amended to ensure that Minnesota's Lake Superior Basin Water Standards and implementation procedures in chapter 7052 are implemented in a manner that is consistent with the Federal Guidance.

The duties assumed by the MPCA in this Addendum apply only to those portions of Minnesota's NPDES program applicable to Lake Superior.

1. 40 C.F.R. § 132.2, Defmition of "New Great Lakes Discharger''JMinn. R. 7052.0010, subp. 33

MPCA and EPA agree that if the MPCA receives any application for a NPDES permit for any Great Lakes discharge associated with any building, structure, facility, or installation, the construction of which commenced after March 23, 1997, the MPCA will treat the discharger as if it were a "new discharger."

2. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix A, Tier II Values for Aquatic Life/Minn. R. 7052.0100

MPCA and EPA agree that, in situations where data have become available that would result in more stringent aquatic life criteria or values than the criteria listed in Minn. R. 7050.0222, the MPCA will utilize its Tier IT methodologies in Minn. R. 7052.0110 to develop criteria or values, and those criteria or values shall be used rather than those listed in Minn. R. 7050.0222, for implementing Minnesota's narrative criteria, establishing total maximum daily loads, establishing water quality based effluent limitations, and making reasonable potential determinations.

3. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix E, Antidegradation/Minn. R. 7052.0300, subp. 3

EPA and MPCA agree that, in making NPDES pennitting decisions regarding new or increased discharges into class 7 waters in the Lake Superior basin, MPCA shall always apply and comply with the nondegradation provisions for high quality waters set forth at Minn. R. 7052.0300, subp. 4, and in Minn. R. 7052.0310, subp. 3, for class 7 waters for all pollutants covered by Appendix E to Part 132 because application and compliance with those provisions will always be necessary to ensure compliance with the antidegradation requirements applicable to downstream outstanding international resource waters and outstanding resource value waters.

4. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5, Reasonable Potential To Exceed Water Quality Standards, Paragraph B.2./Minn. R. 7052.0220, subp. 3

EPA and MPCA agree thatMPCA will use only alternative statistical procedures for deriving PEQ that meet the criteria in 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5, Paragraph B.2. EPA and MPCA further agree that EPA retains the authority to review any specific statistical procedures Minnesota intends to use for deriving PEQs and to object to permits that have been developed using statistical procedures that do not meet the requirements of Paragraph B.2. of Procedure 5.

5. 40 C.F .R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5, Paragraph D.3.c.i., Information Regarding Intake Credits in NPDES Permit Fact Sheets/Minn. R. 7052.0220, subp. 5, and 7001.0100, subp. 3

EPA and MPCA agree that MPCA will include the information required by Paragraph D.3.c.i of Procedure 5 in Appendix F to 40 C.F.R. Part 132 whenever the MPCA determines there is no reasonable potential for the discharge of an intake pollutant to cause or contribute to an excursion above water quality criteria.

6. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 8, Paragraph D, Water Quality-Based Emuent Limitations (WQBELs) Below the Quantification Level: Pollutant Minimization Program/Minn. R. 7052.0250, subp. 4

EPA and MPCA agree that Minnesota will include in NPDES permits for discharges into Lake Superior where there is a WQBEL for a pollutant that is below the level of quantification a requirement for at least semiannual monitoring of potential sources of the pollutant at issue and quarterly influent monitoring, unless less frequent monitoring is justified based upon information generated in conducting a pollutant minimization program.

7. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 9 and 40 C.F.R. § 122.47(a)(1), Compliance Schedules for New or More Restrictive WQBELs/Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp 2.A and Minn. R. 7052.0260, subp. 2 and 3

EPA and MPCA agree that Minnesota will not allow compliance schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits where none is needed or appropriate. For example, Minnesota will not allow compliance schedules where a permittee is able to meet the WQBEL at the time of permit issuance or where the permit contains a new but less restrictive WQBEL.

2

8. 40 C.F.R. § 122.47, Compliance Schedules for New or Improved Analytical Methods/Minn. R. 7052.0260, subp. 2 and 3

Minnesota rules require compliance schedules when permits that are issued contain new or improved analytical methods. Minn. R. 7052.0260, subp. 2 and 3. The Federal Guidance does not address compliance schedules for using analytical methods. That issue is governed by EPA's NPDES program regulations at 40 C.P.R. § 122.47, which provides that permits may include a schedule of compliance so long as the permit "require[s] compliance as soon as possible." 40 C.P.R. § 122.47(a)(l). This provision authorizes Minnesota to allow compliance schedules for use of a new or improved analytical method if such schedules require use of the new analytical method "as soon as possible." Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2.A., provides that a compliance schedule "must require compliance in the shortest reasonable period of time."

EPA and Minnesota agree that "the shortest reasonable period of time" for use of a new or improved analytical method would generally be the period of time necessary to allow a permittee to develop or obtain the analytical services or undertake any other activities necessary to allow the permittee to actually use the new analytical method. EPA and Minnesota also agree that it would be unreasonable to establish a compliance schedule for using a new or improved analytical method that includes additional time based upon the pennittee' s ability to comply with its WQBEL.

This Addendum to the Memorandum of Agreement will be effective upon final approval of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

FOR THE MINNESOTA POlLUTION CONTROL AGENCY:

4:t:xe~.;, w(j".f Date Assistant Commissioner

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V:

Date

AG: 377902,v. 01

3

MIKE HATCH ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Francis X. Lyons· Regional Administrator

STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 1, 2000

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, ll.. 60604

SUITE900 445 MJNNI!SOTA STREET ST. PAUL, MN SSIOI-lll7 TELEPHONE: (651) 297-1075

Re: MPCA's Legal Authority to Interpret and Implement the Specific Provisions of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7052 Addressed in the Addendum to the NPDES Memorandum of Agreement Between MPCA and EPA • .•

Dear Mr. Lyons:

I have reviewed the agreements that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has made in the Addendum to the NPDES Memorandum of Agreement between the MPCA and EPA. It is my opinion that the MPCA has the legal authority to interpret and implement the specific rules· at issue as it has agreed to in the Addendum.

The authority of the MPCA is found in the statutes and rules of the State cited in the following text. They are in full force and effect on the date of this statement.

1. 40 C.F.R. § 132.2, Definition of ''New Great Lakes Discharger"!Minn. R. 7052.0010, subp.33

40 C.P.R. § 132.2 defines "New Great Lakes discharger" as "any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a 'discharge of pollutants' (as defined in 40 C.F.R. 122.2) to the Great Lakes System, the construction of which commenced after March 23, 1997." Minn. R. 7052.0010, subp. 33, in pertinent part, defines a "new discharger" as "any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a 'discharge of pollutants,' as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 122.2, to surface waters of the state in the Lake Superior Basin ... the construction of which commenced after" March 9, 1998. The only problem identified in comparing the two definitions arises from the difference in the effective dates in the two definitions.

MPCA and EPA have agreed in the Addendum to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 'Memorandum of Agreement between the MPCA and the EPA (Addendum) that if the MPCA receives any application for a NPDES permit for any Great Lakes discharge associated with any building, structure, facility, or installation, the construction of which commenced after March 23, 1997, the MPCA will treat the discharger as if it were a "new discharger."

As of the date of this certification, in late April 2000, Minnesota has not received any applic~tion for a NPDES pennit for any Great Lakes discharge associated with any building, structure,

Facsimile: (651) 297-4139 • TIY: (651) 296-1410 • Toll Free Lines: (800) 657-3787 (Voice), (800) 366-4812 {ITY) • www.ag.state.mn.us

An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Value.~ Diversity 0 Printed on 50% recycled paper (15% post consumer content)

Mr." Francis X. Lyons May 1, 2000 Page2

facility or installation, the construction of which commenced between March 23, 1997, and March 9, 1998.

Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 1(e), authorizes the MPCA to adopt, issue, modify, deny, revoke, and enforce reasonable permits, under such conditions as the agency may prescribe, for the prevention of water pollution and for the operation of disposal systems and other facilities. Under Minn. Stat. § 115.07, subd. 1, and rules adopted under that statute, it is unlawful for any person to construct, install, or operate a disposal system, or any part thereof, until it has received a pennit from the MPCA. See Minn. R. 7001.0030 and 7001.1040.

The definitions of "disposal system" and the terms used in that definition, all in Minn. Stat. § 115.01, signify that sections 115.03 and 115.07, and rules adopted under those statutes, impose a comprehensive permitting requirement on all buildings, structures, facilities and installations covered by the state and federal requirements. By operation of those statutory provisions any construction during the subject period without a permit would have been contrary to law and could not serve as the basis for an argument that the "new discharger" deadline had not passed as to that construction or resulting discharge. As a result, the MPCA would have to treat any application received now or later for a NPDES permit for any Lake Superior discharge associated with any building, structure, facility or installation the construction of which commenced after March 23, 1997, as an application from a "new discharger."

2. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix A, Tier II Values for Aquatic Life/Minn. R. 7052.0100

40 C.P.R. Part 132, Appendix A, contains a methodology for deriving Tier IT aquatic life values to be used in lieu of Tier I criteria in situations where there are insufficient data to calculate Tier I criteria. 40 C.P.R. § 132.4 (c) and (d) provide that, if Tier I criteria are not available, Tier ll aquatic life values calculated in accordance with the Tier ll methodology apply in the Great Lakes System and must be used when implementing narrative water quality criteria.

Under Minn. R. 7052.0100, Tier I aquatic life criteria apply to the Great Lakes System. If Minnesota has not adopted Tier I aquatic life criteria for a particular pollutant, but there are criteria listed in Minn. R. 7050.0222 for that pollutant that Minnesota previously adopted, then Minnesota uses the previously adopted aquatic life criteria. That is, Minnesota does not generate Tier.IT values utilizing its methodology for developing Tier ll values in Minn. R. 7052.0110 if Minnesota has previously adopted criteria listed in Minn. R. 7050.0222. If there are no Tier I aquatic life criteria or previously adopted criteria listed in Minn. R. 7050.0222, Minnesota utilizes its Tier IT methodologies to develop Tier II aquatic life values.

However, new data could become available subsequent to the date that Minnesota adopted its criteria at Minn. R. 7050.0222 that would result in more stringent Tier II aquatic values under the Minnesota and Federal Guidance Tier II aquatic life methodologies. Unlike in the Federal Guidance, nothing in Minnesota's rules requires the MPCA to develop new Tier ll values based upon those new data in situations where there are criteria in Minn. R. 7050.0222. Thus, the Minn. R. 7050.0222 criteria may not be as stringent as the criteria would be if derived using the more current data, assuming the data were to indicate that more stringent values were appropriate.

Mr. Francis X. Lyons May 1, 2000 Page3

To resolve that potential inconsistency, MPCA and EPA have agreed that, in situations where data have become available that would result in more stringent aquatic life criteria or values than the criteria listed in Minn. R. 7050.0222, the MPCA will utilize its Tier II methodologies in Minn. R. 7052.0110 to develop criteria or values to be used for implementing its narrative criteria, establishing total maximum daily loads, establishing water quality based effluent limitations, and making reasonable potential determinations.

The authority for MPCA to make that agreement appears in Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 5, which authorizes the MPCA to do all things, including adopting, amending and applying standards and rules, consistent with and not less stringent than the Clean Water Act applicable to the participation by Minnesota in the NPDES. The MPCA has agreed in the Addendum to apply its standards in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and Minnesota's participation in the NPDES, exactly what the Minnesota statute contemplates. See also Minn. Stat. § 115.44, subd. 8, as further support for the State's authority to utilize its Tier II methodologies.

Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2 and 3.B., require the MPCA to include in permits conditions necessary for the permittee to achieve compliance with applicable federal law and allow the MPCA to adopt and enforce more stringent standards and apply them to existing permits.

3. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix E, Antidegradation/Minn. R. 7052.0300, subp. 3

40 C.P.R. Part 132, Appendix E, regarding the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Antidegradation Policy, requires that the decision whether a water body is high quality for purposes of antidegradation be made on a parameter by parameter basis. Minnesota's nondegradation standards at Minn. R. 7052.0300, subp. 4, limit high quality waters in the Lake Superior basis to those designated as Outstanding International Resource Waters (OIR.Ws). Minnesota rules define OIR.Ws at subpart 3 of part 7052.0300 as, "[a]ll surface waters of the state in the Lake Superior Basin, other than Class 7 waters and designated ORVWs." That definition appears to raise a conflict with the Federal Guidance because Class 7 waters cannot be considered high quality waters by definition, regardless of water quality for individual bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs) as required by the Federal Guidance. However, Minn. R. 7052.0300, subp. l.C., requires that the nondegradation procedures at Minn. R. 7052.0310, 7052.0320, and 7052.0330 must be applied to Class 7 waters as necessary to protect downstream waters.

EPA and MPCA have agreed in the Addendum that in making NPDES permitting decisions regarding new or increased discharges into class 7 waters in the Lake Superior basin, MPCA shall always apply and comply with the nondegradation provisions for high quality waters set forth at Minn. R. 7052.0300, subp. 4, and in Minn. R. 7052.0310, subp. 3, for class 7 waters for all pollutants covered by Appendix E to Part 132 because application and compliance with those provisions will always be necessary to ensure compliance with the antidegredation requirements applicable to downstream outstanding international resource waters and outstanding resource value waters.

The authority for MPCA to make that agreement appears in Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 5, which authorizes the MPCA to do all things, including applying standards and rules consistent with

Mr.' Francis X. Lyons May 1, 2000 Page4

and not less stringent than the Clean Water Act applicable to the participation by Minnesota in the NPDES. Further authority is found in the rule, Minn. R. 7052.0300, subp. l.C., cited as the resolution to the potential inconsistency, in Minn. R. 7052.0005 B., and in Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2 and 3.B, as described in the preceding section of this letter.

4. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5, Reasonable Potential To Exceed Water Quality Standards, Paragraph B.2./Minn. R. 7052.0220, subp. 3

The Federal Guidance at 40 C.P.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5, Paragraph B.2., and Minnesota's program at Minn. R. 7052.0220, subp. 3, both allow for use of alternative statistical procedures for deriving preliminary effluent quality (PEQ). The Minnesota rule provides that any alternate PEQ procedure used must fulfill the requirements of 40 C.P.R.§ 122.44, para. (d)(l). While any alternate procedure that meets the requirements of Paragraph B.2. of Procedure 5 would meet the requirements of 40 C.P.R. § 122.33(d)(l), certain procedures that meet the Minnesota requirements, i.e., 40 C.P.R. § 122.33(d)(l), may not satisfy the requirements of Paragraph B.2. of Procedure 5.

EPA and MPCA have agreed that MPCA will use only alternative statistical procedures for deriving PEQ that meet the criteria in 40 C.P.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5, Paragraph B.2.

The authority for the MPCA to make that agreement appears in Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 5, which authorizes the MPCA to do all things, including applying standards and rules consistent with and not less stringent than the Clean Water Act applicable to the participation by Minnesota in the NPDES. The MPCA has agreed in the Addendum to apply its standards in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and Minnesota's participation in the NPDES. Further the action MPCA has agreed to lies within an administrative agency's generally accepted enforcement discretion. Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2 and 3.B, as described in Section 3, express further authority for the MPCA's agreement.

5. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 5, Paragraph D.3.c.i., Information Regarding Intake Credits in NPDES Permit Fact Sheets/Minn. R. 7052.0220, subp. 5, and 7001.0100, subp. 3

Paragraph D.3.b. of Procedure 5 in Appendix F to 40 C.P.R. Part 132, allows permitting authorities to determine that there is no reasonable potential for identified intake pollutants to cause or contribute to an excursion above water quality criteria when a permittee can demonstrate that five specified conditions are met. Paragraph D.3.c.i. requires the NPDES permit fact sheet to state the basis for and document the finding of no reasonable potential for chemical-specific water quality based effluent limitation. While Minnesota's "intake credit" provisions require meeting the same five conditions as in the Federal Guidance, they do not contain anything comparable to the requirement in Paragraph D.3.c.i. to document in the pennit fact sheet the basis for a finding of no reasonable potential for chemical-specific water quality based effluent limitation.

However, Minnesota's general permitting rule at Minn. R. 7001.0100, subp. 3, requires the MPCA to include in the fact sheet "the principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological, and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit, . . . a summary of the

-· --------------------

Mr: Francis X. Lyons May 1, 2000 PageS

basis for the draft permit conditions, including references to applicable statutory or regulatory provisions, . . . and the preliminary determinations made by the commissioner on the permit application." These general provisions include the information required by Paragraph D.3.c.i. in the Federal Guidance whenever the MPCA determines there is no reasonable potential for the discharge of an intake pollutant to cause or contribute to an excursion above water quality criteria.

EPA and MPCA have agreed that :MPCA will include the information required by Paragraph D.3.c.i. of Procedure 5 in Appendix F to 40 C.P.R. Part 132 whenever the MPCA determines there is no reasonable potential for the discharge of an intake pollutant to cause or contribute to an excursion above water quality criteria.

The authority for the MPCA to make that agreement appears in Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 5, which authorizes the MPCA to do all things, including applying standards and rules consistent with and not less stringent than the Clean Water Act applicable to the participation by Minnesota in the NPDES. The MPCA has agreed in the Addendum to apply its standards in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and Minnesota's participation in the NPDES. The authority also resides in Minn. R. 7001.0100, subp. 3, which requires inclusion in the fact sheet for each draft MPCA permit facts such as agreed to here.

6. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 8, Paragraph D, Water Quality-Based Emuent Limitations (WQBELs) Below the Quantification Level: Pollutant Minimization Program!Miiin. R. 7052.0250, subp. 4

Paragraph D of Procedure 8 in Appendix F to 40 C.P.R. Part 132, requires inclusion of pollutant minimization programs (PMPs) in pennits where there is a WQBEL for a pollutant that is below the level of quantification. Paragraph D.l. requires semiannual monitoring of potential sources of the pollutant while Paragraph D.2. requires quarterly monitoring for the pollutant in the effluent of the wastewater treatment system. Finally, Paragraph D.6. allows a permitting authority to reduce monitoring frequencies based upon information generated as a result of a PMP.

Minn. R. 7052.0250, subp.4, requires only that PMPs include requirements for "periodic monitoring" of potential pollutant sources and of wastewater treatment system influent.

EPA and MPCA have agreed that Minnesota will require in its NPDES permits for discharges into Lake Superior where there is a WQBEL for a pollutant that is below the level of quantification a requirement for at least semiannual monitoring of potential sources of the pollutant at issue and quarterly influent monitoring, unless less frequent monitoring is justified based upon information generated in conducting a pollutant minimization program.

The authority for the MPCA to make that agreement appears in Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd 5, which authorizes the MPCA to do all things, including adopting, amending and applying standards and rules, consistent with and not less stringent than the Clean Water Act applicable to the participation by Minnesota in the NPDES. The MPCA has agreed in the Addendum to apply its standards in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and Minnesota's participation in the NPDES. The Minnesota rule requires periodic monitoring. Making that general requirement specific as to the period at which

Mr: Francis X. Lyons May 1. 2000 Page6

monitoring shall take place lies within the :MPCA's generally accepted enforcement discretion. Further, Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 1(e), authorizes the :MPCA to adopt, issue, modify, deny, revoke, and enforce reasonable permits, under such conditions as the agency may prescribe, for the prevention of water pollution and for the operation of disposal systems and other facilities. See also, Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2 and 3.B, as described in section 3 of this letter.

7. 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix F, Procedure 9 and 40 C.F.R. § 122.47(a)(1), Compliance Schedules for New or More Restrictive WQBELs!Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp 2.A and Minn. R. 7052.0260, subp. 2 and 3

Federal Guidance mentions compliance schedules only in Procedure 9 of Appendix F. Paragraph A of Procedure 9 requires that any WQBEL included in a permit to a new discharger must be complied with upon the commencement of the discharge. Minn. R. 7052.0260, subp. 2, also requires that any WQBEL included in a permit to a new discharger must be complied with upon commencement of the discharge.

EPA and MPCA agree that Minnesota will not allow compliance schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits where none is needed or appropriate. For example, Minnesota will not allow compliance schedules where a permittee is able to meet the WQBEL at the time of permit issuance or where the pennit contains a new but less restrictive WQBEL.

Neither the Federal Guidance nor Minn. R. ch. 7052 expressly prohibits inclusion of a compliance schedule in an existing permit that is reissued or modified to contain a new or more restrictive WQBEL where a compliance schedule is not needed, i.e., when the permittee can comply with the new or more restrictive WQBEL upon reissuance of the permit. However, separate provisions of federal regulations and Minnesota rules do require compliance upon reissuance when possible. See 40 C.P.R. § 122.47(a)(l) ("schedules of compliance ... shall require compliance as soon as possible") and Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2.A ("schedule of compliance must require compliance in the shortest reasonable period of time"). The latter provision is prefaced with the condition "[i]f applicable to the circumstances." Further, Minn. R. 7001.0100, subp. 2, regarding draft permits, provides, "If the preliminary determination is to issue a permit, the commissioner shall prepare a draft permit, including a proposed schedule of complianc~ if a schedule is necessary to meet all applicable standards and limitations imposed by statute or rule." ·

The only reasonable reading of the cited provisions of Minnesota law is that the State will not allow compliance schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits where none is needed or appropriate. Minnesota is fully authorized to agree with the EPA that it will not allow compliance schedules in those circumstances. The implication of the agreement is that Minnesota will not allow compliance schedules where a permittee is able to meet the WQBEL at the time of permit issuance or where the permit contains a new but less restrictive WQBEL.

Mi. Francis X. Lyons May 1, 2000 Page?

8. 40 C.F.R. § 122.47, Compliance Schedules for New or Improved Analytical Methods/Minn. R. 7052.0260, subp. 2 and 3

Minnesota rules require compliance schedules when permits that are issued contain new or improved analytical methods. Minn. R. 7052.0260, subp. 2 and 3. Federal Guidance does not address compliance schedules for using analytical methods. That issue is governed by EPA's NPDES program regulations at 40 C.P.R. § 122.47, which provides that permits may allow a schedule of compliance so long as the pennit "require[s] compliance as soon as possible." 40 C.P.R. 122.47(a)(l). This provision authorizes Minnesota to allow compliance schedules for use of a new or improved analytical method if such schedules require use of the new analytical method "as soon as possible."

Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2.A., provides that a compliance schedule "must require compliance in the shortest reasonable period of time." EPA and Minnesota agree that "the shortest reasonable period of time" for use of a new or improved analytical method would generally be the period of time necessary to allow a permittee to develop or obtain the analytical services or undertake any other activities necessary to allow the pennittee to actually use the new analytical method. EPA and Minnesota also agree that it would be unreasonable to establish a compliance schedule for using a new or improved analytical method that includes additional time based upon the permittee's ability to comply with its WQBEL.

The authority for the MPCA to make that agreement appears in Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 5, which authorizes the MPCA to do all things, including applying standards and rules consistent with and not less stringent than the Clean Water Act applicable to the participation by Minnesota in the NPDES. The MPCA has agreed in the Addendum to interpret its standards in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and Minnesota's participation in the NPDES. Further, Minn. Stat.§ 115.03, subd. l(e), authorizes the MPCA to adopt, issue, modify, deny, revoke, and enforce reasonable permits, under such conditions as the agency may prescribe, for the prevention of water pollution and for the operation of disposal systems and other facilities.

The MPCA has the authority to interpret, implement and enforce the proposed agreements it has made in the Addendum to the NPDES Memorandum of Agreement with the BP A.

Very truly yours,

~~ DWIGHT S. WAGBNIUS ~ Assistant Attorney General

(651) 296-7345

AG: 3SIS38,v. 01

monday, october 07, 2013 6:25 pm...danielle diamond; kendra kimbirauskas; chris c & kristi...

Documents