Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
PROPOSED MULTI-SECTOR GENERAL PERMIT (MSGP) FACT SHEET
FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
A NOTE TO REVIEWERS AND COMMENTERS:
EPA proposes the text in this draft Fact Sheet as part of the Proposed 2020 MSGP. In
most instances, EPA proposes the draft Fact Sheet text in present tense rather than
conditional tense (e.g., "This Part requires" versus "This Part would require", or "The
operator must" versus "The operator would be required to"). Where EPA proposes
specific changes to the permit from the 2015 MSGP, the Fact Sheet text reflects that
(e.g., "EPA proposes that..."). With the inclusion of this note, reviewers and
commenters should read and interpret all text as proposed and not final. EPA is
proposing the Fact Sheet in this format so readers can see any proposed language as it
might be written in the final permit and to improve editing efficiency during the permit
finalization process.
Page 1 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
I. Background
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PuPlic Law 92-500, OctoPer 18,
1972) (hereinafter the Clean Water Act or CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 etseq., with the stated oPjectives
to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and Piological integrity of the Nation's waters."
Section 101 (a), 33 U.S.C. 1251 (a). To achieve this goal, the CWA provides that "the discharge of
any pollutant Py any person shall Pe unlawful" except in compliance with other provisions of the
statute. CWA section 301 (a). 33 U.S.C. 1311. The CWA defines "discharge of a pollutant" Proadly to
include "any addition of any pollutant to navigaPle waters from any point source." CWA section
502(12). 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). EPA is authorized under CWA section 402(a) to issue a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of any pollutant from a point source.
These NPDES permits are issued Py EPA or NPDES-authorized state or triPal agencies. Since 1972,
EPA and the authorized states have issued NPDES permits to thousands of dischargers, Poth
industrial (e.g., manufacturing, energy and mining facilities) and municipal (e.g., sewage
treatment plants). As required under Title III of the CWA, EPA has promulgated Effluent Limitations
Guidelines (ELGs) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for many industrial point source
categories and these requirements are incorporated into NPDES permits. The Water Quality Act
(WQA) of 1987 (PuPlic Law 100-4, FePruary 4, 1987) amended the CWA, adding CWA section
402(p), requiring implementation of a comprehensive program for addressing stormwater
discharges. 33 U.S.C. 1342(p).
Section 405 of the WQA of 1987 added section 402(p) of the CWA, which directed the EPA to
develop a phased approach to regulate stormwater discharges under the NPDES program. EPA
puPlished a final regulation on the first phase of this program on NovemPer 16, 1990, estaPlishing
permit application requirements for "stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity". See
55 FR 47990. EPA defined the term "stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity" in a
comprehensive manner to cover a wide variety of facilities. See 40 CFR 122.26(b) (14). EPA
proposes to issue the 2020 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) under this statutory and regulatory
authority.
The Regional Administrators of all 10 EPA Regions are today proposing to issue EPA's NPDES MSGP
for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity. The proposed MSGP, when finalized,
will replace the 2015 MSGP, which was issued on June 4, 2015 (80 FR 34403), and expires on June 4,
2020. The proposed 2020 MSGP is actually 50 separate general permits covering areas within an
individual state, tribal land, or U.S. territory, or federal facilities. These 50 general permits contain
provisions that require industrial facilities in 29 different industrial sectors to, among other things,
implement control measures and develop site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plans
(SWPPPs) to comply with NPDES requirements. In addition, the MSGP includes a thirtieth sector,
available for EPA to permit additional industrial activities that the Agency determines require
permit coverage for industrial stormwater discharges not included in the other 29 industrial sectors.
II. 2015 MSGP Litigation
After EPA issued the 2015 MSGP in June 2015, several parties, collectively referred to as
"petitioners," filed petitions for review of the permit which were consolidated in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Petitioners included Waterkeeper Alliance, Apalachicola
Riverkeeper, Galveston Baykeeper, Raritan Baykeeper, Inc. d/b/a NY/NJ Baykeeper, Snake River
Waterkeeper, Ecological Rights Foundation, Our Children's Earth Foundation, Puget Soundkeeper
Alliance, Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, and Conservation Law Foundation. Federal Water
Quality Coalition and Federal Storm Water Association intervened in the case as respondents on
August 4, 2015. Before any briefs were filed in the MSGP Litigation, the parties entered into
settlement discussions under the auspices of the Second Circuit's Civil Appeals Mediation Program.
A Settlement Agreement resulted from these discussions, which all parties signed on August 16,
2016. The Settlement Agreement did not affect the 2015 MSGP, but stipulated several terms that
EPA agreed to address in the proposed 2020 MSGP. EPA understands that the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, in particular the proposed "Additional Implementation Measures" (AIM)
Page 2 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
benchmark exceedance protocol, will increase regulatory certainty from for those who must
comply with the permit, as intervenors expressed, while resolving petitioners' concerns that the
previous corrective actions for benchmark exceedances were not sufficient to ensure that the
permit controlled discharges as sufficient to protect water quality, as is required by the CWA.
Industrial stormwater discharges are explicitly required to meet all provisions of CWA §301,
including applicable water quality standards (CWA §402(p) (3) (A)). See Part 5 of this Fact Sheet for
a detailed discussion of the AIM protocol as agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement.
Below, EPA outlines the key terms from this Settlement Agreement and how and where EPA
addressed those terms in the proposed permit.
• The NRC Study. EPA agreed to fund a study conducted by the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's (NAS) National Research Council (NRC). The study
committee was tasked to 1) Suggest improvements to the current MSGP benchmarking
monitoring requirements; 2) Evaluate the feasibility of numeric retention standards; and 3)
Identify the highest-priority industrial facilities/subsectors for consideration of additional
discharge monitoring. The study was released in February 2019 and can be found at the
following link: https://www.nap.edu/cataloa/25355/improving-the-epa-multi-sector-
general-permit-for-industrial-stormwater-discharges. In the Settlement Agreement, EPA
agreed that, when drafting the proposed MSGP, it will consider all recommendations
suggested in the completed NRC Study. In addition, where the completed NRC Study
made recommendations regarding the sectors/subsectors, frequency, parameters, and/or
parameter levels in the 2015 MSGP's benchmark monitoring provisions, EPA will solicit
comment on such recommendations in the proposed MSGP. See Section III below for a
detailed outline and discussion of the NRC Study recommendations.
• Comparative Analysis. EPA agreed to review examples of numeric and non-numeric
effluent limitations (including complete prohibitions, if any) applicable to the discharge of
industrial stormwater that have been set in other jurisdictions and evaluate the bases for
those limitations. EPA includes this analysis in the docket for this proposed permit on
regulations.gov (Docket ID#: EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372).
• Preventing Recontamination of Federal CERCLA Sites. EPA agreed to propose for comment
an expansion to all EPA Regions the existing eligibility criterion regarding operators
discharging to Federal CERCLA sites that currently applies to operators in Region 10 in the
2015 MSGP. See Part 1.1.7 of the proposed permit.
• Eligibility Criterion regarding Coal TarSealcoat. EPA agreed to propose for comment a new
eligibility condition for operators who, during their coverage under the next MSGP, will use
coal tar sealant to initially seal or to re-seal pavement and thereby discharge polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs") in stormwater. EPA agreed to propose that those operators
are not eligible for coverage under the MSGP and must either eliminate such discharge or
apply for an individual permit. See Part 1.1.8 of the proposed permit.
• Permit Authorization Relating to a Pending Enforcement Action. EPA agreed to solicit
comment on a provision on the situation where a facility not covered under the 2015 MSGP
submits a Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage while there is a related pending
stormwater-related enforcement action by EPA, a state, or a citizen (to include both
notices of violations ("NOVs") by EPA or the State and notices of intent to bring a citizen
suit). In this situation, EPA agreed to solicit comment on holding the facility's NOI for an
additional 30 days to allow EPA an opportunity to (a) review the facility's control measures
expressed in its SWPPP, (b) identify any additional control measures that EPA deems
necessary to control site discharges in order to ensure that discharges meet technology-
based and water quality-based effluent limitations, and/or (c) to conduct further inquiry
regarding the site's eligibility for general permit coverage. See Part 1.3.3 and Table 1 -2 of
the proposed permit.
Page 3 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
• Additional Implementation Measures (AIM). EPA agreed to include in the benchmark
monitoring section of the proposed MSGP "Additional Implementation Measures" (AIM)
requirements for operators for responding to benchmark exceedances. EPA includes
proposed AIM requirements in Part 5.2 of the proposed permit.
• Part 4.2.4.1 Facilities Required to Monitor for Discharges to impaired waters without an EPA-
approved or established TMDL (previously Part 6.2.4.1. in the 2015 MSGP). EPA agreed to
propose for comment specific edits regarding monitoring for impaired waters. See Part
4.2.4.1 of the proposed permit.
• Revision of Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheets. EPA agreed to review and revise the MSGP's
sector-specific fact sheets associated with the permit. See Appendix Q of the proposed
permit.
III. The National Research Council (NRQ National Academies of Sciences
(NAS) industrial stormwater study
Per the 2015 MSGP Settlement Agreement, discussed above, EPA agreed to fund a study
conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's (NAS) National
Research Council (NRC). The NAS solicited suggestions for potential study committee members
from a wide range of sources before recommending a slate of nominees to the NAS/NRC
president. NAS posted the provisional list of committee members for public comment before the
committee was finalized. The committee included representatives from both the environmental
and regulated communities. NAS had full and final control over the committee selection process.
The committee collected information from individuals and stakeholder organizations representing
various interests and heard from several state permitting authorities for industrial stormwater.
The study committee was tasked to 1) Suggest improvements to the current MSGP benchmarking
monitoring requirements; 2) Evaluate the feasibility of numeric retention standards; and 3) Identify
the highest-priority industrial facilities/subsectors for consideration of additional discharge
monitoring. NAS released the study in February 2019, which can be found at the following link:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25355/improving-the-epa-multi-sector-general-permit-for-industrial-
stormwater-discharaes.
In the Settlement Agreement, EPA agreed that, when drafting the proposed MSGP, it will consider
all recommendations suggested in the completed NRC Study. In addition, where the completed
NRC Study made recommendations regarding the sectors/subsectors, frequency, parameters,
and/or parameter levels in the 2015 MSGP's benchmark monitoring provisions, EPA will solicit
comment on such recommendations in the proposed MSGP. EPA thoroughly reviewed the NRC
Study recommendations and relied on the committee's analysis of the permit to support the
proposed permit requirements originating from the Study. Because EPA funded the NRC study, EPA
did not conduct additional analyses that would have duplicated any analyses found in the NRC
study. Below is a summary of the NRC study recommendations (verbatim from the NRC study
executive summary) and how and where EPA addressed each recommendation. Where
recommendations were related or linked to each other, EPA addresses them jointly below.
Throughout this Fact Sheet, where EPA proposes a new or modified provision, EPA also solicits
comment on alternatives to the proposal and/or not going forward with that proposal in the final
permit.
NRC Recommendations on Pollutant Monitoring Requirements and Benchmark Thresholds
1. NRC recommendation: EPA should require industry-wide monitoring under the MSGP for pH,
total suspended solids (TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) as basic indicators of the
effectiveness of stormwater control measures (SCMs) employed on site.
• EPA response: EPA proposes to require "universal benchmark monitoring" for pH, TSS, and
COD for all facilities. See Part 4.2.1. of the proposed permit and this Fact Sheet.
Page 4 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
2. NRC recommendation: EPA should implement a process to periodically review and update
sector-specific Penchmark monitoring requirements that incorporates new scientific
information.
• EPA response: As part of the permitting process to propose and finalize the MSGP, EPA
reviews and updates sector-specific Penchmark monitoring requirements to incorporate
new scientific information.
o As part of the 2015 MSGP Settlement Agreement, EPA revised the MSGP's sector-
specific fact sheets associated with the permit. See Appendix Q of the proposed permit
and this Fact Sheet.
o EPA proposes to require specific Penchmark monitoring for Sectors I, P, and R. See Parts
8 and 4.2.1.1 of the proposed permit and this Fact Sheet.
o EPA evaluated options for developing a Penchmark for polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarPons (PAHs). After conducting the cost analysis for this proposed permit for 3
options, EPA concluded that COD is the most cost-effective option as a surrogate for
PAHs, and since COD is already Peing proposed under the new "universal Penchmark
monitoring," no additional monitoring for PAHs is Peing proposed at this time. EPA
requests comment on information and data related to specific sectors with petroleum
hydrocarPon exposure that can release PAHs, any concentrations of individual PAHs
and/or total PAHs at industrial sites, and the correlation of PAHs and COD. EPA may
consider additional monitoring for PAHs in the final permit if it receives sufficient
information to develop an appropriate Penchmark threshold. For a full discussion and
detailed analysis of the options and the costs, see Part 4.2.1.2 of the Fact Sheet and
Section E.3 of the Cost Impact Analysis in the docket.
3. NRC recommendation: EPA should update the MSGP industrial-sector classifications so that
requirements for monitoring extend to nonindustrial facilities with activities similar to those
currently covered under the MSGP.
• EPA response: Prior to the issuance of the 1995 MSGP an analysis of industrial sources not
covered under the stormwater Phase I rule was performed to determine whether any such
industries should Pe covered under the 1999 stormwater Phase II rule (Report to Congress,
March 1995, EPA 833-K-94-002). Ultimately, no new industrial sources were included in the
stormwater Phase II rulemaking. While EPA recognizes the Penefits of the recommendation
to cover facilities with activities similar to those already covered Py the MSGP, such an
expansion would require a separate regulatory action to modify the definition of
"stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity" in 40 CFR 122.26(b) (14) and is
outside of the scope of this permit. Additionally, in Sector AD, the MSGP covers other
stormwater discharges designated by the Director as needing a permit (see 40 CFR
122.26(a)(9) (i)(C) & (D)) or any facility discharging stormwater associated with industrial
activity not described by any of Sectors A-AC.
4. NRC recommendation: Benchmarks should be based on the latest toxicity criteria designed to
protect aquatic ecosystems from adverse impacts from short-term or intermittent exposures,
which to date have generally been acute criteria.
• EPA response: EPA proposes to update the benchmark thresholds for cadmium; leave the
benchmark threshold for aluminum as it was in the 2015 MSGP; remove benchmark
thresholds for magnesium and iron; and requests comment on the benchmark thresholds
for selenium, arsenic, and copper. See Parts 4.2.1.2 and 8 of the proposed Fact Sheet.
5. NRC recommendations:
• Additional monitoring data collection on the capacity of stormwater control measures
(SCMs) to reduce industrial stormwater pollutants is recommended to inform periodic
Page 5 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
reviews of the benchmark thresholds and identify sectors for which new national effluent
limits could help address treatment attainability.
• Because of the paucity of rigorous industrial SCM performance data, the development of
new numeric effluent limitations (NELs) is not recommended for any specific sector based
on existing data, data gaps, and the likelihood of filling them.
o EPA response: EPA acknowledges that a more complete and robust dataset is needed
to establish numeric limitations (NELs) for industrial stormwaterin a general permit.
Numeric limitations are determined only on an industry-by-industry basis (or subsector-
by-subsector) and require discharge pollutant levels corresponding to specific control
measures. Many samples are needed because of the high variability (i.e., coefficients
of variation) for industrial stormwater (which is much greater than for drinking water and
wastewater). The benchmark monitoring data that is currently collected in the MSGP is
not suitable or sufficient for determining NELs, which are developed through the effluent
limitations guidelines (ELG) development process. NRC notes that the MSGP as a
general permit is not the appropriate vehicle for collecting the rigorous performance
monitoring data which is necessary to develop new NELs based on the capabilities of
treatment technology and other on-site stormwater management practices. While EPA
recognizes the importance and utility of NELs, the MSGP benchmark monitoring
requirements were designed to be as least burdensome as possible on operators while
still providing the intended utility: a tool to for determining whether operators could
have SWPPP/stormwater control measure deficiencies. Generally, NELs are feasible only
where predictably reliable treatment technologies (as opposed to standard pollution
prevention SCMs other than product substitution) are employed. Where standard SCMs
provide adequate water quality protection, NELs are unnecessary. Some of the requisite
components of a stormwater monitoring program that is sufficient to characterize a
discharge and to accommodate the development of NELs include the following:
o Rainfall monitoring in the drainage area (rate and depth, at least at two locations):
o Flow monitoring at the discharge point (calibrated with known flow or using dye
dilution methods):
o Flow-weighted composite sampling, with sampler modified to accommodate a
wide range of rain events:
o Water quality sonde to obtain high-resolution and continuous measurements of such
parameters as turbidity, conductivity, pH, oxidation reduction potential, dissolved
oxygen (DO), and temperature (recommended):
o Preparation of adequate experimental design that quantifies the needed sampling
effort to meet the data quality objectives (adequate numbers of samples in all rain
categories and seasons): and
o Selection of constituents that meet monitoring objectives.
6. Permitted facilities cannot be compelled to collect additional detailed performance data for
common SCMs under typical stormwater conditions, as this would be very complicated to do in
context of a permit and possibly expensive for operators in balance with other proposed
requirements.
NRC Recommendations on Stormwater Sampling and Data Collection
1. NRC recommendation: EPA should update and strengthen industrial stormwater monitoring,
sampling, and analysis protocols and training to improve the quality of monitoring data.
• EPA response: EPA has existing guidance on industrial stormwater monitoring and sampling,
which can be found at https://www3.epa.aov/npdes/pubs/msap monitoring auide.pdf.
Page 6 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
The guidance explains how to conduct visual and analytical monitoring of stormwater
discharges and can Pe used Py facilities required to comply with the MSGP's monitoring
requirements as well as facilities suPject to state-issued industrial stormwater permits. EPA
may consider updating this guidance as a separate activity from the permit proposal.
Although EPA recognizes the Penefits of developing a new comprehensive industrial
stormwater training or professional certificate program, estaPlishing such a program would
require significant time, resources, and indefinite EPA staff commitment, and is outside the
scope of the permit and capaPilities of EPA's industrial stormwater program at this time.
2. NRC recommendation: EPA should allow and promote the use of composite sampling for
Penchmark monitoring for all pollutants except those affected Py storage time.
• EPA response: EPA proposes an explicit clarification that composite sampling is allowed for
Penchmark monitoring. See Part 4.1.4 of the proposed permit and this Fact Sheet.
3. NRC recommendation: Quarterly stormwater event samples collected over 1 year are
inadequate to characterize industrial stormwater discharge or descriPe industrial SCM
performance over the permit term.
• EPA response: As part of proposed "universal Penchmark monitoring" for pH, TSS, and COD
for all facilities in Part 4.2.1.1, EPA proposes that facilities monitor and report for these three
parameters on a quarterly Pasis for the entire permit term, regardless of any Penchmark
threshold exceedances, to ensure facilities have current indicators of the effectiveness of
their stormwater control measures throughout the permit term. See Part 4.2.1.2 of the
proposed permit and this Fact Sheet.
4. NRC recommendation: State adoption of national laPoratory accreditation programs for the
Clean Water Act with a focus on the stormwater matrix and interlaPoratory caliPration efforts
would improve data quality and reduce error.
• EPA response: EPA has existing guidance on laPoratory procedures and quality assurance
in the NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual (January 2017), which can Pe found at
https://www.epa.aov/sites/production/files/2017-01 /documents/npdesinspect.pdf.
Because this guidance is relatively recent, EPA has no plans to further update it at this time.
5. NRC recommendation: To improve stormwater data quality while Palancing the Purden of
monitoring, EPA should expand its tiered approach to monitoring within the MSGP, Pased on
facility risk, complexity, and past performance.
• EPA response:
o EPA proposes to have the following tiered approach to monitoring: 1) a possiPle
"inspection-only" option in lieu of Penchmark monitoring availaPle to low-risk facilities
(see Part 4.2.1.1 of the proposed permit and this Fact Sheet and associated request for
comment in that Part); 2) require new "universal Penchmark monitoring" for pH, TSS,
and COD; 3) continue existing Penchmark monitoring requirements from the 2015
MSGP; and 4) require continued Penchmark monitoring as part of the proposed
Additional Implementation Measures (AIM) protocol for repeated Penchmark
exceedances. See Parts 4.2. and 5.2 in the proposed permit and this Fact Sheet.
o EPA is also considering an "inspection-only" option as an alternative to Penchmark
monitoring for low-risk facilities. EPA acknowledges the Penefits of an in-person
inspection and aims to provide flexibility in the permit, where appropriate. EPA requests
comment on whether the permit should include an "inspection-only" option, ways to
identify eligible low-risk facilities, what frequency would be appropriate for such an
inspection, what the inspection should entail, and what qualifications or certifications
an inspector should have. Based on the information received during the comment
period for this proposed permit, the Agency may include this option in the final permit.
Page 7 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
For a full discussion and detailed analysis of this option and the costs, see Fact Sheet
Part 4.2.1.1 and Section E.5 of the Cost Impact Analysis in the docket.
6. NRC recommendation: To improve the aPility to analyze data nationally and the efficiency and
capaPility of oversight Py permitting agencies, EPA should enhance electronic data reporting
and develop data management and visualization tools.
• EPA response: EPA recognizes the Penefits of improved electronic data reporting and
management and continues to work on upgrading its electronic reporting systems and
tools with each permit reissuance. EPA will consider implementing improved compliance
reminders, checks on missing or unusual data, and the possiPility of developing a data
visualization tool.
NRC Recommendations on Consideration of Retention Standards in the MSGP
1. NRC recommendations:
a. Rigorous permitting, (pre)treatment, and monitoring requirements are needed along
with careful site characterization and design to ensure groundwater protection in
industrial stormwater infiltration systems.
P. Site-specific factors and water quality-Pased effluent limits render national retention
standards for industrial stormwater infeasiPle within the existing regulatory framework of
the MSGP.
c. EPA should consider incentives to encourage industrial stormwater infiltration or capture
and use where appropriate.
• EPA response: EPA acknowledges the importance of protecting groundwater during
the use of stormwater infiltration systems. EPA proposes infiltration, where the
operator can demonstrate to EPA that it is appropriate and feasiPle for site-specific
conditions, as an alternative or adjunct to structural source controls and/or
treatment controls required in proposed Tier 3 Additional Implementation Measures
(AIM) responses. See Part 5.2.3.2.P of the proposed permit and this Fact Sheet.
2. NRC recommendation: EPA should develop guidance for retention and infiltration of industrial
stormwater for protection of groundwater.
• EPA response: For the final permit, EPA may develop guidance for retention and infiltration
after it reviews any existing state or other federal guidance.
IV. Summary of Proposed Changes from the 2015 MSGP
The proposed 2020 MSGP includes a numPer of new or modified requirements, many already
discussed in the sections aPove. The following list summarizes the more significant changes to
the MSGP.
1. Streamlining of Permit - EPA proposes to streamline and simplify language throughout the
permit to present the requirements in a generally more clear and readaPle manner. Regarding
structure of the proposed permit, proposed Part 4 (Monitoring) was previously Part 6 in the 2015
MSGP; proposed Part 5 (Corrective Actions and AIM) was previously Part 4 in the 2015 MSGP;
and proposed Part 6 (SWPPP) was previously Part 5 in the 2015 MSGP. In EPA's view, formatting
the permit in this new order (Monitoring, followed Py Corrective Actions and AIM, then SWPPP
requirements) makes more sequential sense as the latter parts often refer Pack to requirements
in previous parts of the permit. This new structure should enhance understanding of and
compliance with the permit's requirements. EPA also made a few additional edits to improve
permit readaPility and clarity. EPA revised the wording of many eligiPility requirements to Pe an
affirmative expression of the requirement instead of assumed ineligibility unless a condition was
met. For example, proposed Part 1.1.6.2 reads "If you discharge to an 'impaired water'...you
Page 8 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
must do one of the following:" In comparison, the 2015 MSGP reads "If you are a new
discharger or a new source...you are ineligible for coverage under this permit to discharge to
an 'impaired water' ... unless you do one of the following:". EPA also numbered proposed
permit conditions that were previously in bullet form to make it easier to follow and reference
the permit conditions. Finally, the language of the proposed permit was changed from passive
to active voice where appropriate (e.g., "Samples must be collected..." now reads "You must
collect samples...").
2. Permit Eligibility and Authorization-Related Changes
• Eligibility For Stormwater Discharges to a Federal CERCLA Site - Currently, the 2015 MSGP
requires facilities in EPA Region 10 that discharge stormwater to certain Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA orSuperfund) sites (as
defined in MSGP Appendix A and listed in MSGP Appendix P) to notify the EPA Regional
Office in advance and requires the EPA Regional Office to determine whether the facility is
eligible for permit coverage. In determining eligibility for coverage, the EPA Regional Office
may evaluate whether the facility has included appropriate controls and implementation
procedures designed to ensure that the discharge will not interfere with achieving the
cleanup goals or lead to recontamination of aquatic media at the CERCLA Site. Such
releases can undo cleanups accomplished and can result in new or continuing
impairments of designated uses of the receiving waters. In addition, EPA and potentially
responsible parties performing cleanups cannot obtain cost recovery for responding to
releases of hazardous substances resulting from federally-permitted releases that are in
compliance with the permit, so the permitting of industrial stormwater to CERCLA sites
creates a barrier to cost recovery. In the proposed MSGP, EPA requests comment on
whether this current eligibility criterion should be applied in all EPA Regions for facilities that
discharge to Federal CERCLA sites that may be of concern for recontamination from
stormwater discharges. EPA is also interested in information that would assist the Agency in
identifying such sites. EPA also requests comment on requiring such facilities to notify the
EPA Regional Office a minimum of 30 days in advance of submitting the NOI form. See Part
1.1.7 in the proposed permit.
• Eligibility Relgted to Applicotion of Cool-Tgr Sealcoat - EPA proposes in Part 1.1.8 to include
an eligibility requirement that would apply to operators who will use coal-tar sealcoat
during the term of the 2020 MSGP. To be eligible for coverage under this permit, operators
must not have any stormwater discharges from paved surfaces that will be initially sealed or
re-sealed with coal-tar sealcoat where industrial activities are located during coverage
under the permit. See Part 1.1.8 of the proposed permit.
• Discharge Authorizotion Relgted to Enforcement Action - EPA proposes to establish a
discharge authorization wait period of 60 calendar days after Notice of Intent (NOI)
submission for any operators whose discharges were not previously covered under the 2015
MSGP and who have a pending enforcement action related to stormwater by EPA, a state,
or a citizen (to include both notices of violation (NOVs) by the EPA or a state and notices of
intent to bring a citizen suit). See Part 1.3.3, Table 1-2 of the proposed permit.
3. Public Sign of Permit Coveroge - EPA proposes that the 2020 MSGP include a requirement that
MSGP operators must post a sign of permit coverage at a safe, publicly accessible location in
close proximity to the facility, as other NPDES permittees are required to do. EPA proposes that
this notice must also include information that informs the public on how to contact EPA if
stormwater pollution is observed in the discharge. See Part 1.3.6 of the proposed permit.
4. Consideration of Moior Storm Control Meosure Enhancements - EPA proposes that operators
would be required to consider implementing enhanced measures for facilities located in areas
that could be impacted by stormwater discharges from major storm events that cause extreme
flooding conditions. The purpose of this proposed requirement is to encourage industrial site
operators to consider the risks to their industrial activities and the potential impact of pollutant
Page 9 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
discharges caused by stormwater discharges from major storm events that cause extreme
flooding conditions. EPA also requests comment on how the permit might identify facilities that
are at the highest risk for stormwater impacts from major storms that cause extreme flooding
conditions. See Part 2.1.1.8 of the proposed permit.
5. Monitoring Changes
• Universal Benchmark Monitoring for all Sectors - EPA proposes to require all facilities to
conduct benchmark monitoring for three indicator parameters of pH, total suspended
solids (TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD), regardless of sector/subsector, called
universal benchmark monitoring, as recommended by the NAS study. This proposed
requirement would apply to all sectors/subsectors, including those facilities that previously
did not have any chemical-specific benchmark monitoring requirements and those that
previously did not have these three specific benchmark parameters under the 2015 MSGP.
The NAS study suggested that such universal benchmark monitoring would provide a
baseline and comparable understanding of industrial stormwater risk, broader water quality
problems, and stormwater control effectiveness across all sectors. See Part 4.2.1 of the
proposed permit.
• Impaired Waters Monitoring - Under the current MSGP, operators discharging to impaired
waters must monitor once per year for pollutants for which the waterbody is impaired and
can discontinue monitoring if these pollutants are not detected or not expected in the
discharge. EPA proposes to require operators discharging to impaired waters to monitor
only for those pollutants that are both causing impairments and associated with the
industrial activity and/or benchmarks. The proposal specifies that, if the monitored pollutant
is not detected in your discharge for three consecutive years, or it is detected but you have
determined that its presence is caused solely by natural background sources, operators
may discontinue monitoring for that pollutant. See Part 4.2.4.1 of the proposed permit.
• Updating Benchmgrk Values - EPA proposes to update the cadmium benchmark threshold
for consistency with updated recommended EPA water quality criteria. EPA also proposes
to remove the magnesium and iron benchmarks. Finally, EPA is requesting comment on
allowing facilities to conduct site-specific risk analysis for copper exceedances. See Part
4.2.1 of the proposed fact sheet.
• Sectors with New Benchmgrks - The 2015 MSGP does not require sector-specific benchmark
monitoring for Sector I (Oil and Gas Extraction), Sector P (Land Transportation and
Warehousing), or Sector R (Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yards). Based on the NAS
study recommendation which identified potential sources of stormwater pollution from
these sectors, EPA proposes to add benchmark monitoring requirements for these three
sectors. EPA also requests comment on adding benchmark monitoring requirements for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) for sectors that have petroleum hydrocarbons at
their facilities that could be exposed to stormwater. See Part 8 of the proposed permit.
6. Additional Implementgtion Measures (AIM) - EPA proposes revisions to the 2015 MSGP's
provisions regarding benchmark monitoring exceedances. The corrective action conditions,
subsequent action deadlines, and documentation requirements in proposed Part 5.1 remain
unchanged from the 2015 MSGP. In proposed Part 5.2, EPA proposes new tiered "additional
implementation measures", or AIM, that are triggered by benchmark monitoring exceedances.
The proposed AIM requirements would replace corresponding sections regarding benchmark
exceedances in the 2015 MSGP ("Data exceeding benchmarks" in Part 6.2.1.2 in the 2015
MSGP). There are three AIM levels: AIM Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Operators would be required to
respond to different AIM levels with increasingly robust control measures depending on the
nature and magnitude of the benchmark threshold exceedance. EPA proposes to retain
exceptions to AIM triggers based on natural background sources or run-on for all AIM levels.
EPA also proposes an exception in AIM Tier 2 for a one-time aberrant event, and an exception
in AIM Tier 3 for operators who are able to demonstrate that the benchmark exceedance does
Page 10 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
not result in any exceedance of applicable water quality standards. See Part 5.2 of the
proposed permit.
7. Revisions to Sector-Specific Fact Sheets - EPA proposes updates to the existing sector-specific
fact sheets that include information about stormwater pollution prevention for each sector.
These fact sheets are also proposed to be used when implementing Tier 2 AIM. See Part 5.2.2.2
and Appendix Q of the proposed permit.
V. Geographic Coverage of this Permit
The proposed 2020 MSGP will provide coverage for classes of point source discharges that
occur in areas not covered by an approved state NPDES program. The areas of geographic
coverage of the proposed 2020 MSGP are listed in Appendix C and include the states of Idaho,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico, as well as all Indian country lands and
federal operators in selected states. Permit coverage is also provided in Puerto Rico, the District
of Columbia, and the Pacific Island territories.
Note: The schedule for the transfer of NPDES Permitting Authority to Idaho for general stormwater
permits, including the EPA's MSGP, is July 1, 2021.
Industrial activities on Indian country lands located in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina,
and Virginia, and most Indian country lands in New York were not included in the 2015 MSGP, but
are included in the proposed 2020 MSGP.
VI. Cotegories of Focilities That Cgn Be Covered Under this Permit
The proposed 2020 MSGP, when finalized, will be available for stormwater discharges from the
following 29 sectors of industrial activity (Sector A - Sector AC), as well as any discharge not
covered under the 29 sectors (Sector AD) that has been identified by EPA as appropriate for
coverage. The sector descriptions are based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and
Industrial Activity Codes consistent with the definition of stormwater discharge associated with
industrial activity at 40 CFR 122.26(b) (14) (i-ix, xi). See Appendix D in the 2015 MSGP for specific
information on each sector. The sectors are listed below:
Sector A - Timber Products
Sector P - Land Transportation
Sector B - Paper and Allied Products
Manufacturing
Sector Q - Water Transportation
Sector C - Chemical and Allied Products
Manufacturing
Sector R - Ship and Boat Building or Repairing
Yards
Sector D - Asphalt Paving and Roofing
Materials Manufactures and Lubricant
Manufacturers
Sector S - Air Transportation Facilities
Sector E - Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete,
and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
Sector T - Treatment Works
Sector F - Primary Metals
Sector U - Food and Kindred Products
Page 11 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Sector G - Metal Mining (Ore Mining and
Dressing)
Sector V-Textile Mills, Apparel, and other
FaPric Products Manufacturing
Sector H - Coal Mines and Coal Mining-
Related Facilities
Sector W - Furniture and Fixtures
Sector 1 - Oil and Gas Extraction
Sector X- Printing and PuPlishing
Sector J - Mineral Mining and Dressing
Sector Y - RuPPer, Miscellaneous Plastic
Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Industries
Sector K- Hazardous Waste Treatment
Storage or Disposal
Sector Z- Leather Tanning and Finishing
Sector L - Landfills and Land Application Sites
Sector AA - FaPricated Metal Products
Sector M - AutomoPile Salvage Yards
Sector AB - Transportation Equipment,
Industrial or Commercial Machinery
Sector N - Scrap Recycling Facilities
Sector AC - Electronic, Electrical,
Photographic and Optical Goods
Sector O - Steam Electric Generating
Facilities
Sector AD - Reserved for Facilities Not
Covered Under Other Sectors and
Designated Py the Director
VII. Proposed Permit Requirements
Part 1 How to Obtain Coverage Under the MSGP
Part 1.1 Eligibility Conditions
As with previous permits, to Pe eligiPle for coverage under the 2020 MSGP, operators of
industrial facilities must meet the eligiPility provisions descriPed in Part 1.1 of the permit. If
they do not meet all the eligiPility requirements, operators may not suPmit a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to Pe covered Py the MSGP, and, unless they oPtained coverage for those
discharges under another permit, those discharges of stormwater associated with industrial
activity needing permit coverage will Pe in violation of the CWA.
Pgrt 1.1.1 Location of Your Focilitv
This Part specifies that in order to Pe eligiPle for permit coverage, the facility must Pe
located in an area where EPA is the permitting authority (see Appendix C).
Part 1.1.2 Your Discharges Are Associated with Industrial Activity
This Part specifies that eligiPle facilities must have an authorized stormwater discharge or an
authorized non-stormwater discharge per Part 1.2 associated with industrial activity from
the primary industrial activity (as defined in Appendix A and as listed in Appendix D), or
have Peen notified Py EPA that they are eligiPle for coverage under Sector AD.
Page 12 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 1.1.3 Limitations on Coverage
This Part describes the limitations on what is covered under this permit. Any discharges not
expressly authorized under the MSGP cannot become authorized or shielded from liability
under CWA Section 402(k) by disclosure to EPA, state, or local authorities after issuance of
the MSGP via any means, including the NOI to be covered by the permit, the SWPPP, or
during an inspection. This is consistent with EPA's long-standing interpretation of the scope
of the MSGP.
Part 1.1.3 used to be Part 1.1.4 in the 2015 MSGP. In the 2020 MSGP, EPA focused the
"limitations on coverage" section to specific discharges not authorized by the permit. Other
eligibility requirements that were previously listed under "limitations on coverage" are now
organized under their own headers so it is clearer to the reader what conditions need to be
met in order to obtain eligibility. EPA modified the wording of some conditions previously in
the 2015 MSGP from the negative to the positive, e.g., instead of using "you are ineligible
unless..." EPA changed the phrasing of the condition to "to be eligible, you must...". EPA
hopes this will clarify the eligibility conditions of the permit.
Part 1.1.3.1 Discharges Mixed with Non-Stormwater
The MSGP does not authorize stormwater discharges that are mixed with non-stormwater
discharges, other than those mixed with authorized non- stormwater discharges listed in Part
1.2.2 and/or those mixed with a discharge authorized by a different NPDES permit and/or a
discharge that does not require NPDES authorization. Where a stormwater discharge is
commingled with non-stormwater that is not authorized by the MSGP, the operator must
obtain authorization under another NPDES permit to discharge the commingled discharge.
Pgrt 1.1.3.2 Stormwoter Discharges Associoted with Construction Activity
The 2020 MSGP does not apply to stormwater discharges associated with construction
activity, defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b) (14) (x) and (b) (15), which acknowledges the distinction
between construction and other types of stormwater discharges associated with industrial
activity. An exception to this is for construction associated with mining activities, where
operators in Sectors G, H and J are able to cover earth-disturbing activities in the MSGP in
lieu of obtaining separate coverage under the CGP (EPA included the salient earth
disturbance-related requirements for the mining sectors in Part 8). However, for mining-
related construction that disturbs less than one acre in size, such discharges are covered by
the regular MSGP (i.e., the requirements that are not expressly for earth-disturbances). The
mining-related construction exception provides a more streamlined approach for mining
operators preferring to be covered by one permit, instead of two.
Pgrt 1.1.3.3 Dischgrges Already Covered by Another Permit
This provision describes cases where an operator is ineligible for coverage under the MSGP
because of coverage under another NPDES permit. The objective is to avoid conflict with
the anti-backsliding provisions of the CWA. The cases this applies to include operators
currently covered under an individual NPDES permit or an alternative NPDES general permit;
discharges covered by an individual NPDES permit or alternative NPDES general permit
within the past five years prior to the effective date of the 2020 MSGP, which established
site-specific numeric water quality-based limitations developed for the stormwater
component of the discharge; or discharges from facilities where any NPDES permit has
been or is in the process of being denied, terminated (permit termination does not refer to
the routine expiration and reissuance of permits every five years), or revoked by EPA.
Pgrt 1.1.3.4 Stormwoter Dischgrges Subject to Effluent Limitotions Guidelines
Page 13 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
This section specifies that only the discharges from facilities suPject to the stormwater-
specific effluent limitations guidelines in TaPle 1-1 of the permit are eligiPle for coverage
under this permit. All other stormwater and non- stormwater discharges suPject to effluent
limitations guidelines must Pe covered under any applicaPle alternate NPDES general
permit or an individual NPDES permit.
Part 1.1.4 Eligibility related to Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat
Protection
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires all Federal Agencies to ensure, in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) (the "Services"), that any federal action carried out Py the Agency is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species that is federally-listed as
endangered or threatened ("listed"), or result in the adverse modification or destruction of
haPitat of such species determined to Pe critical ("critical habitat"). See 16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2), 50 CFR 402 and 40 CFR 122.49(c).
EPA developed the proposed requirements of Part 1.1.4 in consultation with the Services to
ensure that discharges covered under the permit are protective of listed species and their
critical habitats. The criteria in Appendix E require the operator to determine, prior to
submitting the NOI for permit coverage, that their facility's stormwater discharges,
authorized non-stormwater discharges, and stormwater discharge-related activities were
either the subject of a separate ESA consultation or an ESA Section 10 permit, or are not
likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat under the ESA. To make this
determination, operators must follow the steps in Appendix E.
For the 2020 MSGP, EPA proposes to have the list of detailed ESA criteria only in Appendix E
of the permit, and remove the criteria list from the permit text and fact sheet. EPA is
concerned that operators may just read the list of criteria in the permit and try to determine
just from that list which applies to their facility. Directing operators to Appendix E ensures
that operators read the important instructions and procedures for how they should
determine their ESA eligibility criterion.
EPA proposes to make very minor revisions to the criteria in Appendix E to better ensure that
the criteria are adequately protective of listed species and their critical habitats and to
improve clarity of the eligibility process. The proposes changes are summarized below.
• Criterion A (No ESA-listed species ond/or critical hgbitgt present in gction area) - no
significant changes proposed.
• Criterion B (Eligibility requirements met by onother operator under the 2020 MSGP) - no
significant changes proposed.
• Criterion C (ESA-listed species ond/or designoted critical hgbitgt likely to occur, but
dischorges not likely to odversely gffect them) - EPA is proposing to add two additional
scenarios under which Criterion C could apply: 1) to allow the eligibility of a facility that
was previously covered under the 2015 MSGP under Criterion C as long as there have
been no changes to the action area and no additional ESA-listed species or
designated critical habitat within the action area since the operator submitted the
certification under the 2015 MSGP; and 2) to allow the eligibility of a facility that was
previously covered under the 2015 MSGP under Criterion C and there have been
changes to the action area and/or additional ESA-listed species or designated critical
habitat listed since the operator submitted certification under the 2015 MSGP. The
proposal retains the scenario previously included in the 2015 MSGP to allow a facility
without previous MSGP coverage to certify eligibility under criterion C of the 2020 MSGP
if it has ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat in the action area following the
Page 14 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
procedures of Appendix E and suPmission of a Criterion C form. See Appendix E for
proposed changes.
EPA also proposes minor updates to Criteria C Evaluation Form Section V "Evaluation of
Discharge Effects". EPA proposes to add "stormwater discharges may adversely affect the
immediate vicinity of the discharge point through streamPank erosion and scour" to
Hydrological Effects. EPA proposes to add "due to exposures to multiple stressors at the
same time" to the description of Toxicity of Pollutants. Finally, EPA proposes to add "I
comply with the applicaPle monitoring requirements and have not had any exceedances"
to Criteria C EligiPility Form Section V.B.
• Criterion D (ESA Section 7 consultation has successfully concluded) - EPA is proposing to
eliminate the option that consultation resulted in a Piological opinion that concludes
that the action is likely to jeopardize listed species or to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical haPitat, and any recommended reasonaPle and
prudent alternatives or reasonaPle and prudent measures are Peing implemented.
• Criterion E (Issuance of section 10 permit) - no significant changes proposed.
Part 1.4.5 Eligibility related to Historic Properties Preservation
Coverage under the 2020 MSGP is availaPle only if operators certify that they meet one of
the eligiPility criteria related to compliance with historic properties protection pursuant to
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). These criteria are used to identify whether
land disturPances associated with the installation or revision of suPsurface stormwater
control measures would affect properties listed in, or eligiPle for listing in, the National
Register of Historic Properties; and, if so, to determine the measures that will prevent or
mitigate adverse effects to the properties.
EPA does not anticipate any effects on historic properties from the pollutants in the
stormwater discharges covered Py the 2020 MSGP. However, existing and new operators
could undertake activities in connection with the 2020 MSGP that might affect historic
properties if they install new or modify control measures that involve suPsurface
disturPance. The overwhelming majority of sources covered under the 2020 MSGP will Pe
operators that are seeking renewal of previous permit coverage. If these existing
dischargers are not planning to construct new stormwater controls or conveyance systems,
they have already addressed NHPA issues. In the 2015 MSGP, they were required to certify
that they were either not affecting historic properties or they had oPtained written
agreement from the applicaPle State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), TriPal Historic
Preservation Officer (THPO), or other triPal representative regarding methods of mitigating
potential impacts. EPA is not aware of any adverse effects on historic properties under the
2015 MSGP, nor the need for a written agreement. Therefore, to the extent the 2020 MSGP
authorizes renewal of prior coverage without relevant changes in operation, it has no
potential to affect historic properties.
Where operators install or modify control measures that involve suPsurface disturPance, the
area of potential effect (APE) for the activities performed to comply with the permit, for
historic preservation purposes, is limited to the location and depth of the earth disturPance
associated with the installation or modification of the stormwater control measures.
Operators need only consider the APE when doing the historic properties screening
procedures to determine their eligiPility criteria in Appendix F. This is the only scenario where
activities authorized or undertaken in connection with the 2020 MSGP may affect historic
properties. Since Poth new and existing dischargers could undertake such activities, all
operators are required to follow the historic property screening procedures to document
eligiPility. Historic preservation requirements are unchanged from 2015.
Page 15 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 1.1.6 Eligibility for "New Dischargers" and "New Sources"1 fas defined in Appendix A)
ONLY:
Port 1.1.6.1 Eligibility for "New Dischorgers" and "New Sources" Bosed on Woter Quality
Standards
This provision descriPes permit eligiPility for operators of facilities classified as new sources
and/or new dischargers (as defined in Appendix A), pursuant to 40 CFR 122.4(i). Facilities
classified as "new source" or "new discharger" are not eligiPle for coverage under the
MSGP for any discharges that EPA determines will not meet an applicaPle water quality
standard. EPA may notify such operators that an individual permit application is necessary
in accordance with Part 1.3.7, or, alternatively, EPA may authorize coverage under the
MSGP after the operators have implemented measures designed to ensure the discharge
meets water quality standards. EPA notes that while Part 1.1.6.1 is designed to specifically
implement 40 CFR 122.4(i), other water quality-Pased requirements apply to new and
existing dischargers. Part 2.2 of the permit includes water quality-Pased effluent limits
applicaPle to all dischargers, which are designed to ensure that discharges from Poth new
and existing operators are controlled as necessary to meet water quality standards.
Pgrt 1.1.6.2 Eligibility for "New Dischorgers" gnd "New Sources" for Woter Quglity-lmpgired
Waters
Part 1.1.6.2 of the permit requires any new source or new discharger to demonstrate its
aPility to comply with 40 CFR 122.4(i) (i.e., prohiPiting the issuance of permits to new sources
and new dischargers that will not meet water quality standards) prior to coverage under
the permit. To satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 122.4(i), an operator must complete one of
the following: (a) prevent all exposure to stormwaterof the pollutant(s) for which the
waterPody is impaired, and retain documentation with the SWPPP on how this was
accomplished: (P) suPmit technical information or other documentation to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office, in advance of suPmitting an NOI, to support a claim that the
pollutant(s) for which the waterPody is impaired is not present at the site ;or (c) prior to
suPmitting the NOI, suPmit data or other technical documentation to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office to support a conclusion that the discharge will meet applicaPle water
quality standards. For discharges to waters without a TMDL, the information must
demonstrate that the discharge of the pollutant for which the water is impaired will meet
water quality criteria at the point of discharge to the waterPody. For discharges to waters
with a TMDL, the information must demonstrate that there are sufficient remaining
wasteload allocations in the TMDL to allow the discharge and that existing dischargers to
the waterPody are suPject to compliance schedules designed to Pring the waterPody into
attainment with water quality standards (e.g., a reserve allocation for future growth). In
order to Pe eligiPle under Part 1.1,6.2.c, the operator must receive a determination from
the EPA Regional Office that the discharge will meet applicaPle waterquality standards. If
the EPA Regional Office fails to respond within 30 days after suPmission of data, the
operator is eligiPle for coverage.
1 " New Discharger" means a facility from which there is or may be a discharge, that did not commence the
discharge of pollutants at a particular site prior to August 13, 1979, which is not a new source, and which has
never received a finally effective NPDES permit for discharges at that site. See 40 CFR 122.2.
"New Source" means any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a "discharge
of pollutants," the construction of which commenced: i) after promulgation of standards of performance
under section 306 of the CWA which are applicable to such source, or ii) after proposal of standards of
performance in accordance with section 306 of the CWA which are applicable to such source, but only if the
standards are promulgated in accordance with section 306 within 120 days of their proposal. See 40 CFR
122.2.
Page 16 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 1.1.6.3 Eligibility for "New Dischargers" and "New Sources" for Waters with High Water
Quality
Part 1.1.6.3 includes the eligibility requirements for new dischargers or new sources
discharging to a Tier 2, 2.5, or 3 water. Operators discharging to Tier 2 or Tier 2.5 waters must
not lower the water quality of the water. Coverage under the permit is not available to new
dischargers or new sources who discharge to a state- or tribe-designated Tier 3 water
(outstanding national resource waters or "ONRW") for antidegradation purposes. Any such
discharges must, therefore, apply for coverage under an individual permit.
The need for such a provision is that state/tribal water quality standards must include an
antidegradation policy. In addition, each state/tribe must identify implementation methods
for their policy that, at a minimum, provide a level of protection that is consistent with the
three-tiered approach of the federal antidegradation regulation. Tier 3 maintains and
protects water quality in ONRWs. Waters classified as ONRWs by states and tribes are
generally the highest quality waters of the U.S. However, the ONRW classification also offers
special protection for waters of exceptional ecological significance, i.e., those that are
important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but do not necessarily have high water quality.
Except for certain temporary changes, water quality cannot be lowered in such waters. 40
CFR 131.12(a)(3). Because of their high quality or ecological significance, EPA expects few
industrial stormwater discharges into ONRWs will be covered under an NPDES permit. See list
of Tier 2, Tier 2.5 and Tier 3 waters in Appendix L.
Part 1.1.7 Eligibility for Stormwater Discharges to Federal CERCLA Sites=
In the 2015 MSGP, facilities in EPA Region 10 and Indian country that discharge stormwater
to certain specified sites that have undergone or are undergoing remedial cleanup actions
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA orSuperfund) are required to notify the EPA Regional Office in advance of
submitting the NOI form to EPA. While the 2015 MSGP permit cycle was limited to discharges
to certain CERLCA sites in EPA Region 10, the Agency is concerned that CERCLA site
recontamination from MSGP authorized discharges may be an issue in all EPA Regions.
Therefore, EPA is proposing that the current eligibility criterion should be applied in all EPA
Regions for facilities that discharge to Federal CERCLA sites that may be of concern for
recontamination from industrial stormwater discharges. EPA evaluated 2015 MSGP NOI
data and found that only 12 facilities in Region 10 have been subject to this requirement in
the current permit. All facilities were able to get coverage under the MSGP, and only one
facility was required to do additional monitoring. Based on this data, EPA estimates that
approximately 4% of facilities in each EPA Region, or 103 facilities total, may be required to
meet the requirement.
In determining eligibility for coverage, the EPA Regional Office may evaluate whether the
facility has included appropriate controls and implementation procedures designed to
ensure that the discharge will not interfere with achieving the cleanup goals or lead to
recontamination of aquatic media at the CERCLA Site. Such releases can undo cleanups
2 References:
Burton, G.A. and Pitt, R.E. (2002) Stormwater Effects Handbook. A Tool for Watershed Managers, Scientists
and Engineers. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Burton, G. A. and R. E. Pitt. 2002. Chapter 5: Sampling effort and collection methods. Pp. 224-338 in
Stormwater effects handbook: A toolbox for watershed managers, scientists, and engineers, G. A. Burton
and R. E. Pitt, eds. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Chiou, C.T., and Kile, D.E., 2000, Contaminant sorption by soil and bed sediment-Is there a difference?: U.S.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 087-00, 4 p.
Page 17 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
accomplished and can result in new or continuing impairments of designated uses of the
receiving waters. In addition, EPA and potentially responsiPle parties performing cleanups
cannot oPtain cost recovery for responding to releases of hazardous suPstances resulting
from federally-permitted releases that are operating in compliance, so the permitting of
industrial stormwater to CERCLA sites creates a Parrier to cost recovery.
Just as in the 2015 MSGP, in the 2020 MSGP a facility is considered to discharge to a federal
CERCLA Site if the discharge flows directly into the site through its own conveyance, or a
through a conveyance owned Py others, such as a municipal separate storm sewer system.
This does not include discharges to a triPutary that flows into a CERCLA Site. "CERCLA Site"
means a facility as defined in Section 101 (9) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (9), that is
undergoing a remedial investigation and feasiPility study, or for which a Record of Decision
for remedial action has Peen issued in accordance with the National Contingency Plan at
40 CFR 300. This definition includes sites that have Peen listed on the National Priorities List in
accordance with Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9605, or that are Peing addressed
using CERCLA authority, including use of an agreement consistent with the Superfund
Alternative Approach Guidance. The federal CERCLA sites to which this provision currently
applies are listed in Appendix P. Facilities seeking authorization to discharge stormwater to
one of these identified CERCLA Sites would Pe required to first notify the appropriate EPA
Regional Office prior to suPmitting their NOI for permit coverage.
To determine eligiPility for coverage under this Part, the EPA Regional Office may evaluate
whether the discharger has in place sufficient controls and implementation procedures
(e.g., enhanced controls, corrective actions, monitoring requirements, and/or numeric
Penchmarks or effluent limits) to ensure that the proposed discharge will not recontaminate
sediments or other aquatic media Peing remediated under CERCLA, such that it causes or
contriPutes to an exceedance of a water quality standard. If following authorization to
discharge under the 2020 MSGP it is determined that a facility discharges stormwater to a
CERCLA Site listed in Appendix P, the facility must notify the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. Upon notification, the EPA Regional Office may impose additional monitoring
requirements, controls, or other actions to prevent recontamination of the CERCLA Site such
that it meets all applicaPle water quality standard. In order to Pecome eligiPle, the facility
must confirm in writing that it agrees to implement the additional requirements. There are a
variety of scenarios under which an MSGP-permitted facility could suPsequently determine
that it is discharging to an Appendix P CERCLA Site. For example, the facility could Pecome
aware of new information regarding the location of its stormwater discharge point or the
fate of the stormwater it discharges into a municipal stormwater system. Or the facility
could Pe notified of the fact that it is discharging to an Appendix P CERCLA Site Py a
potentially responsiPle party, EPA, or another government agency.
NPDES-permitted stormwater discharges may occur within the Pounds of sites that have
Peen remediated or are undergoing remediation under CERCLA. Source sampling and
sediment data from some NPDES discharge points have indicated exceedances of
sediment cleanup goals estaPlished for CERCLA Sites. NPDES permits, particularly general
permits, may not control discharges sufficiently to avoid sediment recontamination
Pecause effluent limits are written to protect the aquatic ecosystem rather than to prevent
sediment impacts or contamination. As a result, after extensive and costly clean-up of
federal CERCLA Sites, these sites can Pe recontaminated Py NPDES discharges, and cost
recovery is not availaPle where the contamination comes from a federally-permitted
release
Contaminated water and sediment can impair the designated uses of a waterPody, which
are included in state/triPal water quality standards. Large quantities of soils and sediments
are "sinks" for contaminants Pecause of their aPility to pick up large amounts of a wide
variety of contaminants (sorption). Sorption to soils and sediments is proPaPly the most
Page 18 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
influential factor on the transport and fate of organic contaminants in the environment
(Chiou and Kile, 2000). Suspended sediment is well known as a major carrier of nutrients and
metals (Schueler, 1997).
Aquatic organisms are exposed to contaminants through their contact with Poth water
and sediment, and also through ingestion of food, according to The Stormwater Effects
HandPook (Burton and Pitt, 2002). Inorganic and organic chemicals can accumulate in
organisms at chronic levels that cause toxicity or death. Sediment-associated
contaminants are one of the most common sources of tissue contamination. Such
contamination is linked to impacts to other Piota higher in the food chain via the "food
weP transfer", an effect especially quantifiaPle with mercury and some organochlorines
such as PCBs and DDT. This occurs in Poth freshwater and marine systems and is not limited
to the aquatic environment, as it has Peen oPserved in terrestrial species, especially Pirds
(Burton and Pitt, 2002).
Non-Penthic organisms can also ingest contaminated sediment directly when the sediment
at rest at the Pottom of a waterPody is moPilized, which occurs when the Poundary (or
Ped) shear stress exerted Py the water exceeds the critical shear stress (i.e., the driving
forces of particle motion [shear stress] exceed the resisting forces that would make the
particles stationary [particle density and size]). Superfund sites generally seek to reduce risk
to humans and other aquatic and terrestrial receptors from eating the fish and other
aquatic organisms contaminated Py pollutants and/or Peing directly exposed to
contaminated water and sediment, which could cause adverse effects to their health and
mortality.
Given the aPove concerns and to avoid contamination/recontamination of the sites and
suPsequent exceedances of water quality standards, the proposed 2020 MSGP descriPes
the process that facilities discharging to a CERCLA Site identified in Appendix P would Pe
required to follow to oPtain or maintain permit coverage. The proposed process remains
unchanged from the 2015 MSGP and provides an opportunity for the facility and/or EPA to
identify or develop the control measures that prevent contamination/recontamination.
Once these measures are in place, the facility should Pe aPle to oPtain MSGP coverage
(or, if coverage was oPtained prior to the commencement of the CERCLA remediation or
determination of an applicaPle discharge, to continue operating under the MGSP).
Alternatively, the facility or EPA Region may determine that coverage under the MSGP is
not appropriate, and individual permit coverage may Pe sought or required per proposed
Part 1.3.7 of the proposed 2020 MSGP. See 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3).
As noted above, this eligibility criterion is currently only applicable to MSGP facilities in EPA
Region 10 states and Indian Country during the 2015 MSGP permit term. EPA has extensive
information that stormwater discharges are a source of CERCLA Site recontamination in
Region 10. EPA Region 10 has seen both the actual recontamination of Superfund Sites from
stormwater discharge points and the potential for recontamination from source control
information gathered at Superfund Sites not yet cleaned up. Recontamination
(exceedances of sediment cleanup standards) has occurred at the Thea Foss Waterway in
Tacoma, Washington, which is within the Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tideflats
Superfund Site and was cleaned up in 2006. It is known that the source of the
recontamination is stormwater from two 96-inch municipal storm drains that drain
approximately 5,000 acres of commercial/residential property, state highways, and city
roads. Source control information gathered at the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund
Site and the Portland Harbor Superfund Site indicate there are facilities discharging
stormwater containing suspended solids with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals that exceed the preliminary remedial goals
for sediment at those sites. Stormwater discharging from the municipal stormwater
discharge points at the Thea Foss Waterway are covered by a Washington MS4 permit and
Page 19 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
have been since 1995. Many of the facilities discharging stormwaterto the Lower
Duwamish and Portland Harbor sites are covered by Washington and Oregon industrial
stormwater general or MS4 permits. See EPA's 2015 MSGP docket for more information
about CERCLA contamination/recontamination in Region 10 from permitted stormwater
discharges (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0803,
https://www.reaulations.aov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-QW-2012-0803). EPA's Region 10 Office
also has expertise in determining site-specific measures that are necessary to ensure
industrial stormwater discharges covered under the MSGP are not leading to
recontamination of aquatic media at CERCLA Sites such that they meet all applicable
water quality standard.
To identify which CERCLA Sites in Region 10 this Part applies in the 2015 MSGP, EPA started
with the Tier 1 and 2 sediment sites, then overlaid them with areas of federal CWA authority
in Region 10. The sediment site tiering system is based on national EPA Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) guidance on managing sediment cleanups, which
establishes the tiering system for sediment sites that will have enhanced input and oversight
by EPA. These sites contain a large amount of contaminated sediment, are expensive to
remediate, and often impact significant numbers of humans and other ecological
receptors. Tier 1 sediment sites are the largest contaminated sediment sites the CERCLA
program is addressing. The Tier 2 sediment sites are in the evaluation process and are
anticipated to meet the Tier 1 site criteria. The size of these sites makes it more likely that
there will be multiple sources of contamination, including NPDES permitted discharge
points. EPA Region 10 is actively engaged in the clean-up process at these sites and
anticipates that when cleanup efforts are complete, these sites could have a higher
probability of recontamination from NPDES permitted discharge points.
Request for Comment 1: Currently, the above eligibility criterion in the 2015 MSGP only applies to
facilities in EPA Region 10. EPA requests comment on whether this current eligibility criterion should
be applied in all EPA Regions for facilities that discharge to Federal CERCLA sites that may be of
concern for recontamination from industrial stormwater discharges. EPA is also interested in
information that would assist the Agency in identifying such sites. EPA also requests comment on
requiring such facilities to notify the EPA Regional Office a minimum of 30 days in advance of
submitting the Notice of Intent (NOI) form.
Part 1.1.8 Eligibility for Facilities using Coal-Tar Sealcoat
Background on Proposed Eligibility Criterion
This Part includes a new eligibility criterion related to the use of coal-tar sealcoat under the
MSGP. Operators who, during coverage under the permit, use coal-tar sealcoat to initially
seal or to re-seal their paved surfaces where industrial activities are located and thereby
discharge polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in stormwater, would be eligible for
coverage under the 2020 MSGP only if they eliminate such discharge(s). This would reduce
the amount of PAHs in industrial stormwater discharges. Alternatively, operators who wish to
pave their surfaces where industrial activities are located with coal-tar sealcoat would be
able to apply for an individual permit.
Polycyclic Aromgfic Hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of chemicals that are persistent in
the environment. PAHs have both natural and man-made sources. Natural sources include
wildfires, volcanic eruptions, and degradation of materials within sediments and fossil fuels.
Man-made sources include the incomplete burning of organic materials like coal, oil, gas,
wood, and garbage, vehicle exhaust, asphalt, coal-tar sealcoat, and creosote (ATSDR,
2011: EPA, 2009: CDC, 2009). According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, coal tars and coal-tar pitches are known to be human carcinogens based on
Page 20 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
studies in humans and 15 PAHs are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human
carcinogens" (2014).
PAHs (sometimes called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) are listed on EPA's Toxic
Pollutants list at 40 CFR 401.15. The Toxic Pollutant List was developed in 1976 and
subsequently added to the CWA by Congress in 1977. The list was intended to be used by
EPA and states as a starting point to ensure that Effluent Guidelines regulations, water
quality criteria and standards, and NPDES permit requirements addressed the problems of
toxics in waterways.
The Toxic Pollutants list consisted of broad categories of pollutants rather than specific,
individual pollutants. Therefore, EPA developed the Priority Pollutant List in 1977 to make
implementation of the Toxic Pollutant List more practical for water testing and regulatory
purposes. The list of 126 Priority Pollutants can be found at Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 423.
Of the hundreds of known PAHs, EPA has designated sixteen as Priority Pollutants:
naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene,
fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene,
benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, indeno[l,2,3-c,d]pyrene, and
dibenz[a,h]anthracene.
Many PAHs can have impacts on humans and the environment. Several PAHs have been
shown to be extremely toxic to and bioaccumulate in fish and aquatic invertebrates, and
are known or probable human carcinogens (EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
2014; NRC, 2019; Scoggins, McClintock, Gosselink, and Bryer, 2007; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2014).
One study in coastal South Carolina performed ecological and human health screening
assessments of sediment data from two other studies (Weinstein et al, 2010). The authors
calculated ratios using the mean individual PAH levels in the pond sediments to the
published preliminary remediation goals (PRG) for that individual PAH (PRG-HQ). Values less
than 1 were considered health protective of human exposures. The authors found that four
commercial ponds, one low density residential pond, and one golf course pond had PRG-
HQ values greater than one for several carcinogenic PAHs and suggested that further study
was warranted.
PAHs and Coal-tar Sealcoat
Coal-tar sealcoat is a type of sealant used to maintain and protect driveway and parking
lot asphalt pavement. Coal-tar sealcoat typically contains 20 to 35% coal tar pitch which is
made up of 50% or more PAHs by weight (Mahler, Van Metre, Bashara, Wilson, and Johns,
2005).
Coal-tar sealcoat, like other pavement, is exposed to the elements and undergoes
weathering and abrasion that can cause dust and particles containing PAHs to break off.
Dust and particles containing PAHs can then be picked up by stormwater discharges and
transported to stormwater control measures or directly to receiving waters where it can
accumulate in sediments and soils. Manufacturers recommend reapplying the sealants
every two to three years due to wear/abrasion (Link).
Studies have observed sub-lethal effects of coal-tar sealcoats particles in sediments for
both amphibians (Bommarito, T., Sparling, D.W., and Halbrook, R.S., 2010 ; Bryer and
Willingham, 2006) and benthic macroinvertebrates (Scoggins et al., 2007). Studying cell lines
from specific organisms can help to identify effects of treatments such as cell-level genetic
abnormalities and damage under controlled conditions. A study examined non-
transformed rainbow trout Waterlool (RTS-W1) fish liver cell line that was exposed to runoff
collected up to 36 days after coal tar sealcoat application. This study found the runoff to
Page 21 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
be genotoxic, meaning that damage to cell-leveled genetic material was caused by
exposure and significant genotoxicity occurred with a 1:100 dilution of runoff (Kienzleret al.,
2015).
As referenced in Van Metre, Mahler, and Wilson (2009), anecdotal reports indicate that use
of coal-tar sealcoat is higher east of the Continental Divide than west of the Continental
Divide, where use of asphalt-based sealcoat is higher. A geographical trend in the use of
coal-tar sealcoat would be consistent with the fact that integrated steel and coke
processing industries (of which coal tar pitch is a by-product) were historically located east
of the Continental Divide for resource and economic reasons during the 19th and 20th
centuries. More prevalent use of coal-tar sealant in the east and limited use in the west may
also explain why watershed studies from the east and west coasts show disparate PAH
loading concentrations from coal-tar sealant.
On the east coast, the New York Academy of Sciences completed a report in 2007 on
pollution prevention and management strategies for PAHs in the New York/New Jersey
Harbor (Valle, Panero, and Shor). Surfaces sealed with refined coal tar-based sealants are
listed as 1 of 11 major sources that each contribute more than 2 percent of the total PAHs
released to air, water, or land. Using yields calculated in Mahler et al. (2005) and estimates
of the amount of sealed surface area in the watershed, the authors estimated that
between 900 and 5800 kg of particulate-bound PAHs were released per year from surfaces
sealed with coal-tar sealants in New York/New Jersey Harbor. The study also acknowledges
that these estimates are likely on the low end given that "certain weather conditions, not
captured in the estimated yields, will induce degradation of the sealant, and that
volatilization of PAHs is not captured by this approach."
West of the continental divide, the Washington State Department of Ecology conducted a
watershed-wide analysis in the Puget Sound to estimate toxic pollutant loadings through
major pathways such as surface water runoff and to provide data on pollutant
concentrations in surface runoff from different land cover types, including
commercial/industrial. This analysis found that combustion emissions and releases from
creosote-treated wood account for most of the PAH release in the Puget Sound basin.
Coal-tar sealant accounted for less than 1 percent of PAH releases as compared to other
sources, ranging from 0.9 to 1.7 tons per year, or approximately 816 to 1,542 kg/year
(Ecology and King County, 2011).
Studies on Stormwater. PAHs. and Coal-tar Sealcoat
Primary Data Collection
Researchers often collect stormwater and other water and soil samples in the field and
perform bench scale studies in the laboratory to assess the type and contribution of
pollutants to the environment. These primary data studies have evaluated the contribution
of PAHs from coal-tar sealcoat. Several studies have found that PAHs can be significantly
elevated in stormwater discharged from coal-tar sealed parking lots and other areas
compared to stormwater from areas that do not use coal-tar sealants. Specifically, an EPA
simulation study of stormwater included both bench-scale panels and full-scale test plots,
which included three test plots with different or no surface treatments: coal tar emulsion
sealant, asphalt emulsion sealant, and unsealed. The results of this study indicated that
coal-tar sealcoat releases 100 to 1,000 times more PAHs than other types of surfaces (Rowe
and O'Conner2011). A separate study collected simulated runoff in Austin, Texas from 13
urban parking lots. Six parking lots were sealed with coal-tar sealcoat, three parking lots
were sealed with asphalt-based sealcoat, two parking lots were unsealed asphalt
pavement, and two parking lots were unsealed concrete pavement. This study found that
the amount of PAHs in stormwater was 65 times higher from coal-tar sealed parking lots
Page 22 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
compared to stormwoter from unsealed parking lots. The study also found that
concentrations for total disolved PAH were aPout an order of magnitude greater in samples
from the 3 coal-tar-sealed test plots than concentrations in samples from the 2 asphalt-
sealed test plot, which in turn were aPout an order of magnitude greater than those from
the unsealed test plot (Mahler et al., 2005).
Several studies have evaluated the concentration of PAHs in either stormwater runoff or
receiving stream sediments in relation to when the coal-tar sealcoats were applied. One of
these studies indicated that the concentrations of PAHs in stormwater runoff are highest
following the application of coal-tar sealcoat and decrease as continued weathering of
the sealcoat occurs (Rowe and O'Connor 2011). Two other studies analyzed PAHs in
sediment samples collected Pefore Austin (Texas) Panned the use of coal-tar sealants and
after the Pan took effect. The first, studying the impacts two years after the Pan took effect,
found no significant difference Pefore and after the Pan (DeMott et al. 2010), but the
second, studying the impacts six to eight years after the ban, observed decreases of PAHs
in the sediment (Van Metre and Mahler 2014).
Modeling Studies
Scientists have also used various analyses related to source apportionment to determine
the relative contributions of various sources of PAHs. Many source apportionment studies
have confirmed the results of primary data studies that where coal-tar sealcoat is used,
PAHs are present at elevated levels. A study looked at PAHs in 40 urban lakes across the U.S.
using a contaminant mass-balance receptor model based on discussed assumptions in the
study and found that on average, coal-tar sealcoat is the largest source of PAHs (Van
Metre and Mahler, 2010). Norris and Henry (2019) also analyzed previously collected
sediment data from both the Lady Bird Lake and the 40 Lakes studies (Van Metre and
Mahler, 2010; Van Metre and Mahler, 2014). They used these data to apportion sources of
PAHs using the Unmix Optimum (Unmix O) receptor model. The results of both the Unmix O
and chi-square approach found that coal-tar sealant contributes to lake sediments and
over 80% of PAHs contained in lake samples from the eastern and central region of the
United States were from coal-tar sealants (Norris and Henry, 2019). This study is consistent
with results in Van Metre and Mahler (2010) and Van Metre and Mahler (2014) that coal-tar
sealcoat contributes PAHs into the environment and that coal-tar sealcoat's contribution to
sediments decreased after Austin banned the use of coal-tar sealcoat in 2006. The Norris
and Henry (2019) study alone was not integral to EPA's inclusion of the eligibility requirement
on the use of coal-tar sealcoat. In addition, PAH discharges from coal-tar sealcoat may
accumulate in the sediment of stormwater ponds. Dredging of accumulated sediments in
stormwater ponds is a key maintenance activity and disposal of dredged PAH-
contaminated sediment may be expensive (Mahler et al., 2012).
Although, many modeling studies have shown that PAHs from coal-tar sealant are present
in stormwater at elevated levels, there has been some acknowledgement that the
variability of PAH concentrations in different sources is a challenge for all source
apportionment models because these models assume PAH source compositions are
relatively constant, even though source composition can change between the source and
where the concentration measurement is taken (the receptor) (Norris and Henry, 2019). A
recent letter to the editor has raised questions on the validity of the source profiles used in
some source apportionment studies (Reilly and Edwards, 2019) while another noted the
challenges with PAH source apportionment to coal-tar sealcoat given the variety of PAH
sources in the environment (Zou, Wang, and Christensen, 2015). A review of existing
literature on the potential effects of runoff coal-tar sealcoat on aquatic organisms
concluded that although "an abundance of literature has shown that PAHs cause
mutagenicity, genotoxicity, and development toxicity," other research studying the
Page 23 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
particular effects of coal-tar sealcoat in runoff in controlled laPoratory tests may
overestimate potential adverse effects in the field (Driscoll et al, 2019).
Product Alternatives
EPA has identified alternatives (i.e., similar product use and cost) to coal-tar sealcoat
including asphalt emulsion sealants and acrylic sealants. These alternatives achieve similar
performance Put contain fewer PAHs and their use is expected to result in a lesser amount
of PAHs discharged in industrial stormwater. For example, asphalt sealant has negligiPle
PAH levels and is considered significantly less harmful to water quality and the environment
than coal-tar Pased sealant (USGS, 2019). Given the comparaPle costs among products,
EPA assumes that most facilities who intend to use coal-tar sealcoat will Pe aPle to find a
product alternative at negligiPle cost difference yet with similar performance. See Section
B.l of the Cost Analysis for this proposed permit in the docket. Other product suPstitute
examples like pervious concrete, permeaPle asphalt and paver systems do not require
sealants and allow stormwater to infiltrate, resulting in decreased discharge, Put may not
Pe appropriate for use with all industrial activities.
Coverage Under an Individual Permit
The MSGP, as a general NPDES permit, covers similar operations and similar types of
discharges that can Pe sufficiently controlled with standard requirements and stormwater
control measures that are applied across an array of facilities. An individual permit is
warranted when, among other reasons, there is an elevated pollutant potential and site-
specific stormwater control measures are necessary to protect water quality. Based on the
documented toxicity of PAHs in coal-tar sealcoat and the listing of many PAHs as Priority
Pollutants, as discussed aPove, discharges from facilities who intend to use coal-tar
sealcoat to pave their surfaces where industrial activities are located are more
appropriately permitted under an individual permit, where the permitting authority can
thoroughly understand the pollutant potential of the discharge and tailor permit
requirements to the more toxic nature of the discharge.
This is the first type of product-specific eligiPility criterion EPA has proposed in the MSGP, but
is akin to EPA's Construction General Permit (CGP) eligibility criterion related to the use of
cationic treatment chemicals at construction sites. Public comments on the proposed 2012
CGP indicated that EPA should take extreme precaution when authorizing the use of
cationic treatment chemicals, especially in light of data suggesting that they are acutely
toxic to aquatic species. For the CGP, EPA concluded that the evidence of toxicity
required additional safeguards that are generally included in the individual permit process.
EPA applies the same logic to the proposed MSGP eligibility criterion related to the use of
coal-tar sealcoat based on the above discussion.
Request for Comment 2: EPA requests comment on the following:
• Whether the permit should include an eligibility criterion related to the application of coal-tar
sealcoat to paved areas where industrial activities are located.
• Any studies that provide data on the level of PAHs from coal-tar sealed pavements, the sources
of measured PAHs in the aquatic environment, the levels of PAHs in fish and seafood, and
associated chemical and biological impacts that may occur via stormwater discharges.
• Whether or to what extent requiring facilities to implement specific stormwater control
measures under the MSGP to control and treat PAH-laden discharges from surfaces paved with
coal-tar sealcoat is an appropriate alternative to the proposed eligibility criterion, and if so,
what those control measures should be.
Page 24 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
References:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2011. Toxic Substances Portal - Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs). https://www.atsdr.cdc.aov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=25
Bommarito, T., Sparling, D.W., Halbrook, R.S. 2010. Toxicity of coal-tar and asphalt sealants in eastern newts,
Natophthalmus viridescens. Chemosphere 81, 187-193.
Bryer, P., Elliott, J.N., Willingham, E. 2006. The effects of coal tar based pavement sealer on amphibian
development and metamorphosis. Ecotoxicology 15, 241-247.
CDC. 2009. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). http://www.epa.aov/sites/production/files/2014-
03/documents/pahs factsheet cdc 2013.pdf.
DeMott, R.P.; Gauthier, T.D.; Wiersema, J.M.; and Crenson, G. 2010. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
Austin Sediments After a Ban on Pavement Sealers. Environmental Forensics. DOI: 10.1080/15275922.2010.526520.
Driscoll, S. K., Kulacki, K. and Marzooghi, S. 2019. A Review of the Literature on Potential Effects of Runoff from
Refined Coal-Tar-Based Sealant Coating on Aquatic Organisms. Integr Environ Assess Manag.
doi: 10.1002/ieam .4210
Ecology and King County. 2011. Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound: Assessment of Selected Toxic
Chemicals in the Puget Sound Basin, 2007-2011. Ecology Publication No. 11-03-055.
https://fortress.wa.aov/ecv/publications/documents/l 103055.pdf
EPA. 2014. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). http://www.epa.aov/IRIS/.
EPA. 2009. Brownfields Profile Glossary, http://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/
searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do? details =&glossaryName=Brownfields%20Profile%
20Glossary#.
Kienzler, A., Mahler, Barbara J., Van Metre, P.C., Schweigert, N., Devaux, A., and Bony, S. 2015. Exposure to runoff
from coal-tar-sealed pavement induces genotoxicity and impairment of DNA repair capacity in the RTL-W1 fish
liver cell line. Science of the Total Environment. 520, 73-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.005.
Mahler, B.J.; Van Metre, P.C.; Bashara, T.J.; Wilson, J.T.; Johns, D.A. 2005. Parking lot sealcoat: An unrecognized
source of urban PAHs. Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI:l 0.1021 / es0501565.
Mahler, B.J.; Van Metre, P.C.; Crane, J.L.; Watts, A.W.; Scoggins, M.; Williams, E.S. 2012. Coal-tar-based pavement
sealcoat and PAHs: Implications for the environment, human health, and stormwater management. Environ. Sci.
Technol. DOI: 10.1021/es203699x.
National Cancer Institute. 2018. Coal Tar and Coal-Tar Pitch, https://www.cancer.aov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/substances/coal-tar.
Norris, G.A. and R.C. Henry. 2019. Unmix Optimum analysis of PAH sediment sources. Sci. Total Environ., 673, pp.
831-838.
NRC. 2019. Improving the EPA Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Stormwater Discharges. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/25355, pp. 33.
O'Reilly, K.T. and Edwards, M. 2019. Letter to the Editor: Comment on Norris and Henry (2019), Science of The Total
Environment. 135248, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135248.
Rowe, A. and O'Connor, T. 2011. Assessment of Water Quality of Runoff from Sealed Asphalt Surfaces. Link]
Scoggins, M.; McClintock, N.L.; Gosselink, L.; Bryer, P. 2007. Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
below coal-tar-sealed parking lots and effects on stream benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society. D0l:10.1899/06-109.1.
USGS. 2019. Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Sealant, PAHs, and Environmental Health, https://www.usgs.gov/mission-
areas/water-resources/science/coal-tar-based-pavement-sealcoat-pahs-and-environmental-health?qt-
science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.
Van Metre, P.C.; Mahler, B.J.; Wilson, J.T. 2009. PAHs Underfoot: Contaminated Dust from Coal-Tar Sealcoated
Pavement is Widespread in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI: 10.1021 / es802119h.
Van Metre, P. and Mahler, B. 2010. Contribution of PAHs from coal-tar pavement sealant and other sources to 40
U.S. lakes. Sci. Total Environ., 409, pp. 334-344.
Van Metre, P. and Mahler, B. 2014. PAH concentrations in lake sediment decline following ban on coal-tar-based
pavement sealants in Austin, Texas. Environ. Sci Technol., 48, pp. 7222-7228.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. 2014 Report on Carcinogens, 14th Edition. Accessed
11/20/19, https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/coaltars.pdf
Page 25 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Valle, S., Panero, M. A., and Shor, L. 2007. Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in the New York/New Jersey Harbor.
Weinstein, John E., Kevin D. Crawford, Thomas R. Garner, and Alan J. Flemming. 2010. Screening-level ecological
and human health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in stormwater detention pond sediments
of Coastal South Carolina, USA. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1 78. 906-916.
Zou, Y., Wang, L., Christensen. E.R. 2015. Problems in the fingerprints based polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
source apportionment analysis and a practical solution, Environmental Pollution, Volume 205, Pages 394-402, ISSN
0269-7491, https://doi.ora/10.1016/i.envpol.2015.05.029.
Request for Comment 3: EPA's Construction General Permit (CGP), which covers stormwater
discharges from certain construction activities where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority,
currently includes an eligiPility criterion for operators who plan to add "cationic treatment
chemicals" to stormwater and/or authorized non-stormwater prior to discharge. To Pe eligiPle for
CGP coverage, those operators must notify the applicaPle EPA Regional Office in advance and
the EPA Regional Office may authorize coverage after the CGP operator has included
appropriate controls and implementation procedures designed to ensure that the use of cationic
treatment chemicals will not lead to discharges that cause an exceedance of water quality
standards. A goal of EPA's stormwater program is to Petter align the Agency's general permits
where appropriate. Therefore, EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate to add the
corresponding CGP eligiPility requirement or a similar eligiPility requirement to the MSGP for
operators who may elect to use cationic treatment chemicals to comply with the MSGP,
specifically Part 2.1.2.5 Erosion and Sediment Controls.
"Cationic Treatment Chemical" are defined as polymers, flocculants, or other chemicals that
contain an overall positive charge. Among other things, they are used to reduce turPidity in
stormwater discharges Py chemically Ponding to the overall negative charge of suspended silts
and other soil materials and causing them to Pind together and settle out. Common examples of
cationic treatment chemicals are chitosan and cationic PAM.
Part 1.2 Types of Discharges Authorized Under the MSGP
Part 1.2.1 Authorized Stormwater Discharges
This Part specifies which stormwater discharges are eligiPle for coverage under the permit.
As descriPed in Part 1.1.3 of this Fact Sheet, not all stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity are eligiPle for coverage under the 2020 MSGP (e.g., stormwater
discharges regulated Py certain national effluent limitations guidelines). Dischargers must
refer to this Part of the permit to determine whether a particular stormwater discharge from
their site can Pe covered under the MSGP. For example, Part 1.2.1.3 specifies that
discharges that are not otherwise required to oPtain NPDES permit authorization, Put are
mixed with discharges that are authorized under the 2020 MSGP, are eligiPle for coverage
under the 2020 MSGP.
Part 1.2.1 used to Pe Part 1.1.2 in the 2015 MSGP. EPA moved this part out of the "eligiPility
conditions" section and created a new section in the permit specifically for types of
discharges authorized (and not authorized) under the permit, still referenced in the eligiPility
conditions section. EPA hopes this will streamline the eligiPility conditions section of the
permit.
Pgrt 1.2.2 Authorized Non-Stormwoter Discharges
This Part lists the non-stormwater discharges authorized under the permit, specifically those
non-stormwater discharges authorized for all sectors, for Sector A for spray water, and for
Sectors G, H, and J for earth-disturPing activities conducted prior to active mining activities.
A proposed change from the 2015 MSGP is a requirement that non-stormwater discharges
from routine external Puilding washdown/power wash water must Pe treated with
Page 26 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
appropriate control measures to minimize discharges of moPilized solids and other
pollutants. This is similar to an existing requirement applicaPle to non-stormwater discharges
of pavement wash waters. EPA encourages that other control measures Pe considered
when doing such cleaning including using the least amount of water in pressure washing to
reduce the quantity of discharge, and running the wash water through a filter to remove
pollutants prior to discharge. Other options are to direct the wash water flow through a
green infrastructure feature(s) (or some similar treatment), or to capture and infiltrate the
flow so there is no discharge. EPA reminds operators using green infrastructure features that
proper operation and maintenance of the features is vital. In any case, if there are douPts
regarding the presence of contaminants in the wash water, even after treatment,
operators should not discharge it to Pe safe.
Previous MSGP versions authorized any pavement and Puilding washwater to Pe
discharged as long as there were no detergents or toxic/hazardous spill material present in
the discharge. But cleaning agents other than detergents could also Pe utilized and could
clearly have the potential to cause water quality issues if discharged. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to retain the 2015 MSGP provision that in addition to detergents, hazardous
cleaning products are specifically prohiPited from Peing discharged under the permit. EPA
is also proposing to retain the 2015 MSGP provision that prohiPits the discharge of wash
waters that have come into contact with oil and grease deposits, sources of pollutants
associated with industrial activities, or any other toxic or hazardous materials, unless the
residues have Peen cleaned up using dry clean-up methods. Additionally, Pecause the act
of washing (especially power washing) moPilizes particulates and other suPstances present
on pavement, specific effluent limits have Peen newly included to ensure such moPilized
particulates are controlled Pefore they are discharged.
Part 1.3 Getting Authorization to Discharge
This Part specifies proposed conditions that the operator must meet in order to oPtain
authorization under the 2020 MSGP.
Pgrt 1.3.1 Prepgre Your SWPPP Prior to Submitting Your Notice of Intent fNOH
This Part requires that the operator develop or update the SWPPP prior to suPmitting the
Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage. If the facility chooses to post the SWPPP on the
Internet per Part 6.4.1, the URL must Pe included on the NOI form and this URL must directly
link to the SWPPP (not just the corporate or facility homepage). If the SWPPP is not posted
online, the facility must enter additional facility information from the SWPPP on the NOI, per
Part 6.4.2.
Pgrt 1.3.2 How to Submit Your Notice of Intent (NOD to Get Permit Coveroge
This Part specifies that to Pe covered (i.e., authorized to discharge) under the MSGP, the
operator must use EPA's NPDES eReporting Tool for the MSGP (NeT-MSGP) to electronically
prepare and suPmit to EPA a complete and accurate NOI by the deadlines listed in Table
1-2. Table 1-2 also provides the discharge authorization date for each category of facility.
Pgrt 1.3.3 Deadlines for Submitting Your NOI ond Your Officiol Date of Permit Coveroge
This Part and Table 1-2 provide the deadlines for submitting NOIs for permit coverage and
the minimum timeframes following NOI submission for discharge authorization for the
different discharge categories. All NOI submittals are subject to a 30-day review period. EPA
may use the waiting period to determine whether any additional measures are necessary
to meet applicable water quality standards, to be consistent with an applicable WLA, or to
comply with state or tribal antidegradation requirements. Additionally, during this waiting
period, the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, or the SHPO or
Page 27 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
THPO or other tribal representative, may request EPA place a hold on an NOI authorization
based on concerns about listed species and/or historic properties. Depending on the
nature of the issue, EPA may require appropriate action either prior to or following
discharge authorization. EPA may decide a delay in authorization is warranted, or that the
discharge is not eligible for authorization under the 2020 MSGP, in which case an individual
NPDES permit would be required.
For the 2020 MSGP, EPA proposes to establish a discharge authorization waiting period of 60
calendar days after NOI submission for any operators whose discharges were not previously
covered under the 2015 MSGP and who have a pending enforcement action related to
stormwater by EPA, a state, or a citizen (to include both notices of violation (NOVs) by EPA
or a state and notices of intent to bring a citizen suit). Beyond the standard 30-day wait
period for all NOIs, EPA would hold an NOI submitted by a facility not previously covered
under the 2015 MSGP with a pending enforcement action related to stormwater for an
additional 30 calendar days. EPA is proposing this new requirement because the Agency is
aware of some instances where a facility with a pending enforcement action will quickly
submit an NOI without adequately developing their SWPPP or stormwater control measures
(SCMs) in order to avoid further enforcement action. This additional review time would
allow EPA to (a) review the facility's SCMs detailed in the NOI and SWPPP to make sure they
are appropriate for the facility which may already have stormwater pollution issues, (b)
identify any additional SCMs that EPA deems necessary to control site discharges in order to
ensure that discharges meet technology-based and water quality-based effluent
limitations, and/or (c) conduct further inquiry regarding the site's eligibility for permit
coverage. EPA may decide that the discharge is not eligible for authorization under the
2020 MSGP, in which case an individual NPDES permit would be required.
Request for comment 4: EPA requests comment on whether the permit should establish a discharge
authorization wait period of 60 calendar days (30 calendar days standard for all new NOIs plus 30
additional days) after NOI submission for any operators whose discharges were not previously
covered under the 2015 MSGP and who have a pending enforcement action related to
stormwater by EPA, a state, or a citizen (to include both notices of violation (NOVs) by EPA or a
state and notices of intent to bring a citizen suit).
Part 1.3.4 Modifying your NOI
This Part specifies that after submitting an NOI, if an operator needs to correct or update
any fields, it may do so by submitting a "Change NOI" form using NeT-MSGP. Per Part 7.1,
the operator must submit your Change NOI electronically via NeT-MSGP, unless the EPA
Regional Office grants a waiver from electronic reporting, in which case the operator may
use the paper Change NOI form in Appendix G-2. When there is a change to the facility's
operator, the new operator must submit a new NOI, and the previous operator must submit
a Notice of Termination (NOT) form as specified in Part 1.4.
In response to operator requests, EPA is also proposing clarification of the timelines for
updating the NOI when site conditions or operators change.
Request for Comment 5: Currently EPA accepts changes or edits to the NOI on the actual NOI
paper form (Appendix G), if the facility is granted a waiver from electronic reporting. EPA is aware
that the actual NOI paper form is not currently formatted for the facility to indicate all of the types
of changes it might need to make on the form and does not allow for sufficient space to include
the rationale/documentation for requesting the changes, if such changes need Regional
approval. EPA requests comment on whether a separate paper Change NOI form (proposed
Appendix G-2) would be useful for facilities for submitting modifications to a paper NOI form.
Page 28 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 1.3.5 Your Office End Date of Permit Coverage
This Part describes how long permit coverage lasts. This part also covers the content
described below under "Continuation of Coverage for Existing Permittees After the Permit
Expires." This clarification was previously stated in Part 1.2.2 of the 2015 MSGP and is being
proposed to remain in the fact sheet only for the proposed 2020 MSGP. The clarification
describes for facilities the continuation of coverage for existing facilities if the permit expires.
Where EPA fails to issue a final general permit prior to the expiration of a previous general
permit, EPA has the authority to administratively extend the permit for permittees authorized
to discharge under the prior general permit. However, EPA does not have the authority to
provide coverage to construction projects not already authorized to discharge under that
prior general permit. Once the five-year expiration date for this permit has passed, any
such projects would need to obtain coverage under an individual permit, or other general
permit that is still in effect.
Continuation of Coverage for Existing Permittees After the Permit Expires
Note that if the 2020 MSGP is not reissued or replaced prior to the expiration date, it will be
administratively continued in accordance with section 558(c) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (see 40 CFR 122.6) and remain in force and effect for discharges that were
covered prior to its expiration. All facilities authorized to discharge prior to the expiration
date of the 2020 MSGP will automatically remain covered under the 2020 MSGP until the
earliest of:
1. The date the facility is authorized for coverage under a new version of the MSGP
following the timely submittal of a complete and accurate NOI. Note that if a timely
NOI for coverage under the reissued or replacement permit is not submitted, coverage
will terminate on the date that the NOI was due; or
2. The date of the submittal of a Notice of Termination; or
3. Issuance of an individual permit for the facility's discharges; or
4. A final permit decision by EPA not to reissue the MSGP, at which time EPA will identify a
reasonable time period for covered dischargers to seek coverage under an alternative
general permit or an individual permit. Coverage under the 2020 MSGP will terminate at
the end of this time period.
EPA reserves the right to modify or revoke and reissue the 2020 MSGP under 40 CFR 122.62
and 63, in which case permittees will be notified of any relevant changes or procedures to
which they may be subject. Where EPA fails to issue another general permit prior to the
expiration of a previous one, EPA does not have the authority to provide coverage to
industrial operators not already covered under that prior general permit. Once the five-year
expiration date for the 2020 MSGP has passed, new operators seeking discharge
authorization should contact EPA regarding the options available, such as applying for
individual permit coverage.
Part 1.3.6 Requirement to Post a Sign of your Permit Coverage
This Part requires industrial site operators to provide a sign or other notice of permit
coverage at a safe, publicly accessible location in close proximity to the facility, as is
required of other NPDES permittees. By providing notice of permit coverage and other
information about the facility, interested parties are better informed on how to obtain the
SWPPP and how to identify the site if reporting potential permit violations.
EPA is proposing requiring that the sign of permit coverage include a statement about how
to obtain a copy of the SWPPP either from a URL or from the EPA Regional Office. This
Page 29 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
addition will make the protocol for requesting a SWPPP easily understandaPle Py the
puPlic. Part 5.4 in the 2015 MSGP already requires MSGP facilities to make their SWPPPs
puPlicly availaPle through a URL or Py providing additional information in the NOI.
To improve transparency of the process to report possiPle violations, EPA also proposes that
the sign of permit coverage must include information on how the puPlic can contact EPA if
stormwater pollution is oPserved in the discharge.
Request for Comment 6: EPA requests comment on whether the 2020 MSGP should include a
requirement that MSGP operators must post a sign of permit coverage at a safe, puPlicly
accessiPle location in close proximity to the facility, as is required of other NPDES permittees. EPA
requests comment on whether this notice should also include information that informs the puPlic on
how to contact EPA if stormwater pollution is oPserved in the discharge. EPA also requests
comment on what other information could Pe included on any sign or other notice.
Part 1.3.7 Coverage Under Alternative Permits
This Part descriPes the procedures for oPtaining an alternative permit. The following are
scenarios in which an alternative permit may Pe required: 1) a new or previously permitted
facility is denied coverage under the MSGP; 2) an existing facility covered under the 2020
MSGP loses their authorization under the MSGP; or 3) an operator requests to Pe covered
under an alternative permit.
Following suPmittal of a complete and accurate NOI, EPA may notify an operator in writing
that it is not covered under the 2020 MSGP, and that it must apply for and/or oPtain
coverage under either an individual NPDES permit or an alternate general NPDES permit.
This notification will include a Prief statement of the reasons for this decision and will provide
application information or NOI requirements.
If an operator is currently covered under a previously issued MSGP or the 2020 MSGP, the
notice will set a deadline to file the permit application or NOI for an individual permit or
alternative general permit, and will include a statement that on the effective date of the
individual NPDES permit or the date of coverage under an alternative general NPDES
permit, coverage under this general permit will terminate. EPA may grant additional time to
suPmit the application or NOI if the operator requests it. If an operator fails to suPmit an
individual NPDES permit application or NOI as required Py EPA, the applicaPility of the
MSGP is terminated at the end of the day specified Py EPA as the deadline for application
or NOI suPmittal. EPA may take appropriate enforcement action for any unpermitted
discharges. If the operator suPmits a timely permit application or NOI, coverage under the
MSGP is terminated on the effective date of the coverage under the alternative permit.
After oPtaining coverage under the MSGP, the operator may request to Pe excluded from
such coverage Py applying for an individual permit. In this case, the operator must suPmit
an individual permit application per 40 CFR 122.28(b) (3) (iii), along with a statement of
reasons supporting the request, to the applicable EPA Regional Office listed in Part 7.9. The
request for an individual permit may be granted (or an alternative general permit may be
proffered) if the reasons are adequate to support the request. When an individual permit is
issued or coverage under an alternative general permit is granted, MSGP coverage is
automatically terminated on the effective date of the alternative permit, per 40 CFR
122.28(b) (3) (iv).
Page 30 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 1.4 Terminating Coverage
Pgrt 1.4.1 How to Submit your Notice of Termingtion (NOT) to Termingte Permit Coverage
This Part describes how to submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to terminate permit
coverage. Termination of MSGP coverage indicates that the operator no longer has an
obligation to manage industrial stormwater per the MSGP's provisions, based on at least
one of the reasons described in Part 1.4.2. To terminate MSGP coverage, the operator must
use EPA's NPDES eReporting Tool for the MSGP (NeT-MSGP) to electronically prepare and
submit a complete and accurate NOT, unless the EPA Regional Office grants the operator
a waiver from electronic reporting, in which case it may use the paper NOT form in
Appendix H; the operator's authorization to discharge terminates at midnight of the day
that the complete NOT is processed. If EPA determines that the NOT is incomplete or that
the operator has not satisfied one of the termination conditions in Part 1.4.2, then the notice
is not valid and the operator must continue to comply with the conditions of the permit.
Pgrt 1.4.2 When to Submit Your NOT
If an operator desires to terminate MSGP coverage, it must submit a Notice of Termination,
as described in Part 1.4.2, within 30 days after one or more of the following conditions have
been met: (1) a new owner or operator has assumed responsibility for the facility; (2)
operations have ceased at the facility (including facility closure) and there no longer are
discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activity and necessary sediment and
erosion controls have already been implemented at the facility as required by Part 2.1.2.5;
(3) operators are covered under one of the three mining-related sectors in the permit (i.e.,
Sectors G, H, and J) and they have met the specific termination requirements described in
the specific sector under which they are covered; or (4) permit coverage has been
obtained under an individual or alternative general permit for all discharges requiring
NPDES permit coverage.
Pgrt 1.5 Conditional Exclusion for No Exposure
This Part states that by submitting a No Exposure Certification (NEC), an operator is no
longer required to comply with the MSGP (including the Notice of Termination
requirements), providing the operator maintains a condition of "no exposure" (i.e., all
industrial materials and operations are not exposed to stormwater). An operator must use
EPA's NPDES eReporting Tool for the MSGP (NeT-MSGP) to electronically prepare and
submit to EPA a complete and accurate NEC once every five years per Part 7.2, unless the
EPA Regional Office grants you a waiver from electronic reporting, in which case you may
use the paper NEC form in Appendix K.
Request for comment 7: EPA requests comment on changing the acronym for the No Exposure
Certification from "NOE" (as used in the 2015 MSGP) to "NEC" to more accurately represent what
the acronym stands for.
Pgrt 1.6 Permit Complionce
This Part explains that any failure to comply with the conditions of the 2020 MSGP constitutes
a violation of the CWA (further discussed in Appendix B). Where requirements and
schedules for taking corrective actions are specified, the time intervals are not grace
periods, but are schedules considered reasonable for making repairs and improvements.
For provisions specifying a time period to remedy noncompliance, the initial failure, such as
a violation of a numeric or non-numeric effluent limit, constitutes a violation of the MSGP
and the CWA, and subsequent failure to remedy such deficiencies within the specified time
periods constitutes an independent, additional violation of the 2020 MSGP and CWA.
However, where AIM is triggered by an event, which does not itself constitute permit
Page 31 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
noncompliance, such as an exceedance of an applicaPle Penchmark, there is no permit
violation provided the operator takes the required responses within the deadlines in Part 5.
Also applicaPle to all operators is the "duty to comply", a standard NPDES permit condition
listed in Appendix B.
Part 1.7 Severability
SeveraPility is a standard permit condition applicaPle to every NPDES permit. The term
means that if any portion of the 2020 MSGP is deemed to Pe invalid, it does not necessarily
render the whole permit invalid and it is EPA's intent for the MSGP to remain in effect to the
extent possiPle, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.16(a) (2) and 124.60. In the event that any part of
the 2020 MSGP is invalidated, EPA will advise the regulated community as to the effect of
such invalidation. EPA typically puts all standard permit conditions in an Appendix
(Appendix B in 2020 MSGP), but the Agency put the severability requirement in Part 1 to
make sure operators do not overlook this provision.
Part 2 Control Measures and Effluent Limits
The 2020 MSGP contains effluent limits that correspond to required levels of technology-
based control for various discharges under the CWA (Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT) as defined in CWA section 304(b)(1) and Appendix A; Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), as defined in CWA section 304(b)(2)
and Appendix A; and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), as defined in
CWA section 304(b)(4) and Appendix A). Where an ELG or NSPS applies to discharges
authorized by this permit, the requirement must be incorporated into the permit as an
effluent limitation. These limits are included, as applicable, in the sector-specific
requirements of Part 8. Where EPA has not yet issued an effluent limitation guideline, EPA
determines the appropriate technology-based level of control based on best professional
judgment (BPJ, sometimes also referred to as "best engineering judgment") of the permit
writer. CWA section 402(a)(1); 40 CFR 125.3. For the 2020 MSGP, most of the technology-
based limits are based on BPJ decision-making because no ELG applies.
Stormwater discharges can be highly intermittent, are usually characterized by very high
flows occurring over relatively short time intervals, and carry a variety of pollutants whose
source, nature and extent varies. This is in contrast to process wastewater discharges from a
particular industrial or commercial facility where the effluent is more predictable and can
be more effectively analyzed to develop numeric effluent limitations. EPA includes non-
numeric effluent limits in NPDES permits,3 such as the MSGP, such as requirements
mandating facilities to "minimize" various types of pollutant discharges, or to implement
control measures unless "infeasible." Consistent with the control level requirements of the
CWA, EPA has defined the term "minimize" as "for the purposes of this permit minimize
means to reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures that
are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of
best industry practices." Similarly, "feasible" means "technologically possible and
economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practices. EPA notes that
it does not intend for any permit requirement to conflict with state water rights law." EPA
has determined that the technology-based numeric and non-numeric effluent limits in the
3 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400, 403 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (noting that "section 502(11) defines
'effluent limitation' as' any restriction' on the amounts of pollutants discharged, not just a numerical restriction";
holding that section of CWA authorizing courts of appeals to review promulgation of "any effluent limitation or
other limitation" did not confine the court's review to the EPA's establishment of numerical limitations on
pollutant discharges, but instead authorized review of other limitations under the definition) (emphasis
added). In Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977), the D.C. Circuit stressed that
when numerical effluent limitations are infeasible, EPA may issue permits with conditions designed to reduce
the level of effluent discharges to acceptable levels.
Page 32 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
2020 MSGP, taken as a whole, constitute BPT for all pollutants, BCT for conventional
pollutants, and BAT for toxic and nonconventional pollutants that may Pe discharged in
industrial stormwater.
The BAT/BPT/BCT effluent limits in the 2020 MSGP are expressed as specific pollution
prevention requirements for minimizing the pollutant levels in the discharge. Some effluent
limits have greater specificity Pecause in past MSGPs they were written in very general
terms, leaving operators wide latitude in interpreting what constituted compliance, which
led to widely varying levels of stormwater program effectiveness. EPA continues to assert
that the comPination of pollution prevention and structural management practices
required Py these limits are the Pest technologically availaPle and economically
practicaPle and achievaPle controls, as well as the most environmentally sound way to
control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff from industrial facilities. This
approach is supported Py the results of a comprehensive technical survey EPA completed
in 1979. Pollution prevention continues to Pe the cornerstone of the NPDES stormwater
program.
Requirements are technologically available
EPA asserts that the requirements of the 2020 MSGP represent BPT, BCT and BAT. Most of the
effluent limits in the 2020 MSGP have Peen permit requirements since EPA first issued the
MSGP in 1995 (with minor modifications). Additionally, Pecause most facilities covered
under the permit are existing dischargers, these facilities are already implementing control
measures to meet the effluent limits in the permit.
Requirements meet the BPT and BAT economic tests set forth in the CWA
There are different economic considerations under BPT, BCT, and BAT. EPA finds that the
limits in the 2020 MSGP meet the BPT and BAT economic tests. Essentially, the same types of
controls are employed to minimize toxic, nonconventional and conventional pollutants. As
a result, EPA is evaluating effluent limits using only the BPT and BAT standards. Since
conventional pollutants will also Pe adequately controlled Py these same effluent limits for
which EPA applied the BPT and BAT tests, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to
conduct separate BCT economic tests.
Under BPT, EPA determined that the requirements of the 2020 MSGP are economically
practicaPle. EPA considered the reasonaPleness of the relationship Petween the costs of
application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction Penefit derived. CWA section
304(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1). EPA estimates the total universe of dischargers that the
2020 MSGP will affect includes approximately 2,400 existing dischargers. Based on estimates
provided in prior permits, updated to reflect changes to the permit and current dollars, EPA
estimates the approximate incremental cost of complying with the 2020 MSGP is around
$5.6 million for 2,400 facilities over the 5-year permit term or $2,363 per facility over the 5-
year permit term. It is well documented that stormwater control measures (SCMs), like the
ones required to comply with the 2020 MSGP, are effective at controlling pollutants in
stormwater discharges. For example, the 2009 National Academies of Sciences' report,
Urban Stormwater Management in the United States, noted that "SCMs, when designed,
constructed, and maintained correctly, have demonstrated the ability to reduce runoff
volume and peak flows and to remove pollutants. A multitude of case studies illustrates the
use of SCMs in specific settings and demonstrates that a particular SCM can have a
measurable positive effect on water quality or a biological metric" (9).
$5.6 million total incremental cost accounts for the cost of some proposed requirements
that do not apply to all facilities; different facilities will have different compliance costs
therefore an average cost per facility is not necessarily reflective of total cost. The total
incremental cost was averaged over 2,400 facilities to obtain a per facility cost of $2,363
Page 33 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
over the five-year permit term. This cost is comparaPle to the previous 2015 MSGP estimate
of $2,750 per facility. Although $5.6 million total incremental cost does not account for
some proposed requirements that require site-specific controls and can only Pe calculated
per unit cost, EPA expects many facilities will have already implemented controls under the
previous permit to comply with some new requirements and that some controls can satisfy
multiple requirements. Therefore, it is possiPle total costs may Pe lower, depending on
which controls the operator has at their facility.
Based on the cost analysis, EPA determined that the requirements of the 2020 MSGP are
economically achievaPle. In determining "economic achievaPility" under BAT, EPA
considered whether the costs of the controls can reasonaPly Pe Porne Py the industry.
Because most facilities covered under the permit are existing dischargers and those
facilities are already implementing control measures to meet the effluent limits in the
permit, and considering the relatively modest incremental (over the 2015 permit) cost of
compliance with the 2020 MSGP (around $475 per year per facility), EPA concludes that the
technology-Pased effluent limitations in the MSGP are unlikely to result in a suPstantial
economic impact to the permitted universe, including small Pusinesses. Hence, EPA
interprets this analysis to indicate that BAT limits are economically achievaPle. The
economic analysis for the proposed 2020 MSGP is availaPle on the docket for the 2020
MSGP (EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372).
Control Measures Used to Meet the Technology-Based Effluent Limits
Stormwater control measures can Pe actions (including processes, procedures, schedules
of activities, prohiPitions on practices and other management practices), or structural or
installed devices to minimize or prevent water pollution. There are many options that
accomplish the oPjective of preventing pollutants from entering waters of the U.S., and of
meeting applicaPle limits. Industrial facility operators are required to select, design, install
and implement site-specific control measures to meet these limits.
EPA generally does not mandate the specific stormwater control measures that operators
must select, design, install and implement to meet the technology-Pased effluent limits in
the permit. The permit provides operators the flexibility to determine their site-specific
controls, taking into consideration what controls are most suited for their industry in terms of
economic practicability and technology availability, and in some cases, considerations
such as available space and safety. For example, Part 2.1.2.1 requires operators to minimize
the exposure of raw, final and waste materials to stormwater. For some facilities, some or all
activities and material storage may be moved indoors, while for others this will not be
feasible. However, even when moving all activities/materials indoors is infeasible, some of
them could be shielded by roofing or tarps, while still other activities may be limited to times
when exposure to precipitation is not likely. Each of these stormwater control measures is
acceptable and appropriate depending on the circumstances. In this respect the non-
numeric effluent limits in the 2020 MSGP are analogous to more traditional numeric effluent
limits, which also do not require specific control technologies to meet the limits.
For many facilities, controls already in place for product loss prevention, accident and fire
prevention, worker health and safety or to comply with other environmental regulations
may be sufficient to meet the stormwater effluent limits in the MSGP. For many facilities, the
effluent limits can be achieved without using highly engineered or complex treatment
systems. The specific limits in Part 2.1 of the MSGP emphasize "low-tech" controls, such as
minimizing exposure to stormwater, regular cleaning of outdoor areas where industrial
activities may take place, proper maintenance, etc. However, sometimes treatment
devices or constructed/installed controls may be necessary, particularly where a facility
might otherwise not meet water quality standards.
Page 34 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
The permit and Fact Sheet provide examples of stormwater control measures, Put operators
are expected to tailor these to their facilities as well as improve upon them as necessary to
meet permit limits.
Part 2.1 Control Measures
Part 2.1 requires operators to select, design, install, and implement control measures, in
accordance with good engineering practices and manufacturer's specifications, to meet
the technology-Pased effluent limits listed in Parts 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 and the water quality-
Pased effluent limitations in Part 2.2. Note that compliance with the Part 2 effluent limits
involving control measures does not compel operators to undertake any activities that are
considered unsafe. Operators must Pe aware that regulated stormwater discharges include
stormwater run-on from outside sources that commingles with their own stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity, and they must account for the commingled
discharges accordingly when selecting control measures. If operators find their stormwater
control measures are not reducing pollutant discharges adequately, the control measures
must Pe modified in accordance with the Part 5 corrective action requirements.
Some of the control measures required in this Part are straightforward and as a result, the
associated Part 6 SWPPP documentation requirements may Pe minimal. This means that it is
acceptaPle to copy and paste the language of the effluent limit from the permit in the
SWPPP without any additional detail or selection of a control measure. EPA maintains in the
2020 MSGP the following documentation provision that was included in the 2015 MSGP to
provide for such convenience and Purden reduction for operators: "Effluent limit
requirements in Part 2.1.2 that do not involve the site-specific selection of a control measure
or are specific activity requirements (e.g., 'Cleaning catch Pasins when the depth of dePris
reaches two-thirds (2/3) of the sump depth and keeping the dePris surface at least six
inches Pelow the outlet pipe') are marked with an asterisk (*). When documenting in your
SWPPP, per Part 6, how you will comply with the requirements marked with an asterisk, you
have the option of including additional information or you may just "cut-and-paste" those
effluent limits verPatim into your SWPPP without providing additional documentation (see
Part 6.2.4)." The relative lack of leeway or choices that operators have for compliance
justifies the option of allowing operators to just reproduce verPatim the requirement as
written in the MSGP into their SWPPPs. While minimal documentation may Pe sufficient and
reduces some Purden, operators may wish to add more information aPout where, when,
and to which things at the site the effluent limit/control measure will Pe applied, if they
deem this information useful.
The permit's approach to control measures is consistent with the CWA and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k) (4). Section 402(a)(2) of the CWA states: "The administrator
shall prescriPe conditions for such permits to assure compliance with the requirements in
paragraph (1) . . .including conditions on data and information collection, reporting and
such other requirements as he deems appropriate." (Section 402(a)(1) includes effluent
limitation requirements.) This statutory provision is reflected in the CWA implementing
regulations, which state that Pest management practices (BMPs), i.e., control measures,
can Pe included in permits when " [t]he practices are reasonaPly necessary to achieve
effluent limitations and standards or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA." 40
CFR 122.44(k)(4).
Part 2.1.1 Control Measure Selection and Design Considerations
In Part 2.1.1 operators are required to consider certain factors when selecting and designing
control measures, including:
• Preventing stormwater from coming into contact with polluting materials is generally more
effective and less costly than trying to remove pollutants from stormwater:
Page 35 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
• Using combinations of control measures is more effective than using control measures in
isolation for minimizing pollutants;
• Assessing the type and quantity of pollutants, including their potential to impact receiving
water quality, is critical to determining which control measures will achieve the limits in the
permit;
• Minimizing impervious areas at the facility and infiltrating runoff onsite (via bioretention cells,
green roofs, pervious pavement, etc.) can reduce runoff, and improve ground water
recharge and stream base flows in local streams (although care must be taken to avoid
ground water contamination);
• Attenuating flow using open vegetated swales and natural depressions can reduce in-
stream impacts of erosive flows;
• Conserving and/or restoring riparian buffers will help protect streams from stormwater runoff
and improve water quality; and
• Using treatment interceptors (e.g., swirl separators, oil-water separators, sand filters) may be
appropriate in some instances to minimize the discharge of pollutants.
• Implementing structural improvements, enhanced pollution prevention measures, and
other mitigation measures, such as the following:
o Reinforce materials storage structures to withstand flooding and additional exertion of
force;
o Prevent floating of semi-stationary structures by elevating to the Based Flood Elevation
(BFE)4 level or securing with non-corrosive device;
o When a delivery of materials is expected, and a storm is anticipated within 48 hours,
delay delivery until after the storm or store materials as appropriate (refer to emergency
procedures);
o Temporarily store materials and waste above the BFE level;
o Temporarily reduce or eliminate outdoor storage;
o Temporarily relocate any mobile vehicles and equipment to upland areas;
o Develop scenario-based emergency procedures for major storms that are
complementary to regular stormwater pollution prevention planning and identify
emergency contacts for staff and contractors; and
o Conduct staff training for implementing your emergency procedures at regular
intervals.
For the 2020 MSGP, EPA proposes that operators would be required to consider implementing
enhanced measures, such as structural improvements, additional pollution prevention
measures, and other mitigation measures that are complementary to regular stormwater
pollution prevention planning. EPA proposes adding this requirement to encourage industrial
site operators to consider the risks to their industrial activities and the potential impact of
pollutant discharges caused by stormwater discharges from major storm events that cause
extreme flooding conditions. Where facilities already have emergency and risk management
plans, operators should consider how they might bolster existing procedures to account for the
4 Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is the computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the
base flood. BFEs are shown on FEMA Flood Maps and on the flood profiles.
Page 36 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
impacts on their stormwater controls measures (for instance, controls Peing filled with sediment
or clogged Py dePris) and potential pollutant discharges during extreme wet weather.
Request for Comment 8: EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate for the permit to
include language similar to the proposed language aPove that facilities should consider
implementing enhanced controls to minimize impacts from stormwater discharges from major
storms that cause extreme flooding conditions. EPA requests information on structural
improvements, enhanced pollution prevention measures, and other mitigation measures that the
permit could require facilities to consider. EPA also requests comment on how the permit might
identify facilities that are at the highest risk for stormwater impacts from major storms that cause
extreme flooding conditions.
One approach could Pe to use the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Map
Service Center (found at https://msc.fema.aov/portal/search) to determine if the facility is in a
"Special Flood Hazard Area" or Other Area of Flood Hazard. SFHAs are defined as the area that will
Pe inundated Py the flood event having a 1-percent chance of Peing equaled or exceeded in
any given year. The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the Pase flood or 100-year
flood. SFHAs are laPeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR,
Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30.
"Other flood hazard areas" (or moderate flood hazard areas) are laPeled Zone B or Zone X
(shaded) are also shown on the Flood Map and are the areas Petween the limits of the Pase flood
and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which
are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance
flood, are laPeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded). More information on FEMA flood zones can Pe
found at https://www.fema.aov/flood-zones
Part 2.1.2 Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits (BPT/BAT/BCO
The 2020 MSGP requires operators to implement stormwater control measures (SCMs) to
comply with non-numeric technology-Pased effluent limits, expressed narratively pursuant
to 40 CFR 122.44(k). The achievement of these non-numeric limits will result in the reduction
or elimination of pollutants from stormwater discharges. Such limits were developed using
EPA's Pest professional judgment (BPJ). The requirements in Part 2 are the effluent limits
applicaPle to all discharges associated with industrial activity for all sectors, while additional
sector-specific effluent limits are found in Part 8.
Throughout Part 2.1 (and Part 8), the term "minimize" means "reduce and/or eliminate to
the extent achievaPle using control measures (including Pest management practices) that
are technologically availaPle and economically practicaPle and achievaPle in light of
Pest industry practice." The term "infeasiPle" means not technologically availaPle or not
economically practicaPle and achievaPle in light of Pest industry practices. EPA notes that
it does not intend for any permit requirement to conflict with state water rights law. The
following is a summary of the permit's non-numeric technology-Pased effluent limits:
Part 2.1.2.1 Minimize Exposure
This Part requires operators to limit the exposure of manufacturing, processing, and material
storage areas to stormwater in order to minimize (per the definition of "minimize" in
Appendix A) pollutant discharges Py either locating industrial materials and activities inside
or protecting them with storm-resistant coverings. Limiting contact with precipitation can
reduce the need for control measures to treat or otherwise reduce pollutants in stormwater
runoff. Examples include covering materials or activities with temporary structures (e.g.,
tarps) when wet weather is expected or moving materials or activities to existing or new
permanent structures (e.g., Puildings, silos, sheds). Even a simple practice such as keeping a
dumpster lid closed can Pe very effective. In minimizing exposure, operators must also:
Page 37 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
• Use grading, berming, or curbing to prevent runoff of contaminated flows and divert
run-on away from these areas;
• Locate materials, equipment, and activities so that potential leaks and spills are
contained or able to be contained or diverted before discharging;
• Clean up spills and leaks promptly using dry methods (e.g., absorbents) to prevent the
discharge of pollutants;
• Store leaky vehicles and equipment indoors or, if stored outdoors, use drip pans and
absorbents;
• Use spill/overflow protection equipment;
• Perform all vehicle and/or equipment cleaning operations indoors, under cover, or in
bermed areas that prevent runoff and run-on and also that capture any overspray; and
• Drain fluids from equipment and vehicles that will be decommissioned, and, for any
equipment and vehicles that will remain unused for extended periods of time, inspect
at least monthly for leaks.*
Part 2.1.2.2 Good Housekeeping
This Part requires that the operator keep all exposed areas that are potential pollutant
sources clean to help a facility meet water quality standards. Good housekeeping is an
inexpensive way to maintain a clean and orderly facility and keep contaminants out of
stormwater discharges. Often the most effective first step towards minimizing pollution in
stormwater from industrial sites simply involves commonsense improvements to a facility's
basic housekeeping methods. A clean and orderly work area can reduce the possibility of
accidental spills caused by mishandling of chemicals and equipment and well-maintained
material and chemical storage areas can reduce the possibility of stormwater mixing with
pollutants.
There are some simple procedures operators can implement to meet the good
housekeeping effluent limit, including improved operation and maintenance of industrial
machinery and processes, improved materials storage practices, better materials inventory
controls, more frequent and regular clean-up schedules, maintaining well organized work
areas, and education programs for employees about these practices. At a minimum, to
comply with this effluent limit operators must:
• Sweep or vacuum at regular intervals, or alternatively, wash down the area and collect
and/or treat, and properly dispose of the washdown water;
• Store materials in appropriate containers;
• All dumpsters with a lid must remain closed when not in use. For dumpsters and roll off
boxes that do not have lids and could leak, ensure that discharges have a control (e.g.,
secondary containment, treatment). In no cases can there be dry weather discharges
from dumpsters or roll off boxes;*
• Minimize the potential for waste, garbage, and floatable debris to be discharged by
keeping exposed areas free of such materials or by intercepting them before they are
discharged.
• This part also includes a plastic materials requirement for facilities that handle pre-
production plastic ("nurdles") to implement BMPs to eliminate such plastic discharges in
stormwater. EPA includes this language to identify and increase awareness of the
potential for this type of pollution to occur. Examples of plastic material required to be
addressed as stormwater pollutants include plastic resin pellets, powders, flakes,
Page 38 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
additives, regrind, scrap, waste and recycling.
EPA also recommends that operators store containers that are potential sources of
stormwater pollution away from direct traffic routes, stack them according to
manufacturer's specifications, and store them on pallets or other similar devices to prevent
corrosion.
Part 2.1.2.3 Maintenance
This Part descriPes how operators must maintain all stormwater control measures so they
remain effective. Operators must comply with the following maintenance activity
requirements:
• Performing inspections and preventive maintenance of stormwater drainage, source
controls, treatment systems, and plant equipment and systems that could fail and result
in contamination of stormwater;
• Diligently maintaining nonstructural control measures (e.g., keep spill response supplies
availaPle, personnel appropriately trained);
• Inspecting and maintaining Paghouses at least quarterly to prevent the escape of dust
from the system and immediately removing accumulated dust at the Pase of the
exterior Pag house;*
• Cleaning catch Pasins when the depth of dePris reaches two-thirds (2/3) of the sump
depth and keeping the dePris surface at least 6 inches Pelow the outlet pipe;*
If the operator finds that its control measures need maintenance, it must conduct
necessary maintenance immediately. If control measures need to Pe repaired or replaced,
the operator must immediately take all reasonaPle steps to minimize or prevent the
discharge of pollutants until it can implement the final repair or replacement, including
cleaning up any contaminated surfaces so that the material will not Pe discharged during
suPsequent storm events. Final repairs/replacement of stormwater controls should Pe
completed as soon as feasiPle Put must Pe no later than the timeframe estaPlished in Part
5.1.2 for corrective actions, i.e., within 14 days or, if that is infeasiPle, no longer than 45 days
(or longer per notification of the Region). If a control measure was never installed, was
installed incorrectly, or not in accordance with Parts 2 and/or 8, or is not Peing properly
operated or maintained, the operator must conduct corrective action as specified in Part
5.1.
The 2020 MSGP now specifies that "immediately" means that the day the operator finds a
condition requiring corrective action, you must take all reasonaPle steps to minimize or
prevent the discharge of pollutants until you can implement a permanent solution.
However, if the operator identifies a proPlem too late in the work day to initiate corrective
action, the operator must perform the corrective action the following work day morning.
"All reasonaPle steps" means that the operator responds to the conditions triggering the
corrective action, such as cleaning up any exposed materials that may Pe discharged in a
storm event (e.g., through sweeping, vacuuming) or making arrangements (i.e.,
scheduling) for a new SCM to Pe installed. EPA also proposes that "all reasonaPle steps"
does not mean taking action when it is unsafe to do so (e.g., due to inclement weather).
This Part includes language on Paghouses to highlight the need for their inspection and
maintenance, Pecause Paghouses can Pe very significant sources of pollutants. EPA
encourages operators to inspect and maintain Paghouses more frequently than quarterly
and encourages the use of Paghouse leak detectors so that proPlems are detected as
soon as possiPle. This Part also includes industry-standard catch Pasin cleaning
requirements to prevent this maintenance action from Peing overlooked. Where possiPle,
Page 39 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
EPA encourages operators to clean catch Pasins prior to the dePris depth reaching 2/3 in
order to avoid a BMP failure.
Part 2.1.2.4 Spill Prevention and Response Procedures
This Part requires that operators minimize the potential for stormwater exposure from leaks,
spills and other releases, which are major sources of stormwater pollution. As a reminder,
the term "minimize" is defined, for the purposes of this permit, as "to reduce and/or
eliminate to the extent achievaPle using control measures that are technologically
availaPle and economically practicaPle and achievaPle in light of Pest industry practices."
In addition to preventing spills and leaks, this effluent limit has requirements for after a
spill/release occurs, to limit environmental damage. EPA encourages operators to identify
potential spill areas and keep an inventory of materials handled, used, and disposed. This
information would Pe valuaPle for complying with the requirement to specify the material
handling procedures, storage requirements, containment or diversion equipment, and spill
cleanup procedures that will minimize the potential for spills/releases and, in the event of a
spill/release, ensure a proper and timely response. To comply with this effluent limit,
operators must:
• Plainly laPel containers (e.g., "Used Oil," "Spent Solvents," "Fertilizers and Pesticides")
that could Pe susceptiPle to spillage or leakage to encourage proper handling and
facilitate rapid response if spills or leaks occur;*
• Implement procedures for material storage and handling, including the use of
secondary containment and Parriers Petween material storage and traffic areas, or a
similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these
areas (e.g., curPing, spill diversion pond; douPle-walled tank; drip pan);
• Develop training on the procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and
cleaning up leaks, spills, and other releases. When needed, execute such procedures as
soon as possiPle;
• Keep spill kits on-site, located near areas where spills may occur or where a rapid
response can Pe made; and
• Notify appropriate facility personnel when a leak, spill, or other release occurs.
Part 2.1.2.4 also specifies that when a leak, spill or other release containing a hazardous
suPstance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportaPle quantity estaPlished
under either 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, or 40 CFR 302, occurs during a 24-hour period, the
operator must notify the National Response Center (NRC) at (800) 424-8802 or, in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (202) 267-2675 as soon as there is knowledge of
the discharge. State or local requirements may necessitate reporting spills or discharges to
local emergency response, puPlic health, or drinking water supply agencies. Contact
information must Pe in locations that are readily accessiPle and availaPle.
In addition to implementing spill prevention and response measures to minimize stormwater
contamination, EPA encourages operators to implement controls that will minimize the
potential for leaked or spilled material from storage tanks to Pe discharged into receiving
waterPodies. Such discharges can and have caused water quality impairments and serious
drinking water proPlems downstream from the tank release. One notaPle incident of
drinking water contamination caused Py direct discharges of spilled material at an
industrial stormwater-permitted facility occurred January 9, 2014 at the Freedom Industries
facility near Charleston, West Virginia. The spill was caused Py a steel storage tank leak,
which resulted in direct discharges of crude 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM) into
the Elk River, leaving 300,000 residents, as well as Pusinesses, hospitals, and schools without
drinking water. To prevent future incidents like this, EPA encourages MSGP facilities with
Page 40 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
material storage tanks, especially those with chemical storage tanks, to implement controls
such as the following to Poth minimize the potential for stormwater contamination and to
minimize the potential for direct discharges from storage tank spills or leaks:
• Secondary containment: For all chemical liquids and petroleum products that are held
in a storage area, tank or other container, store the fluids within an impermeaPle
secondary containment area with a retention capacity of at least 110% of the volume
of the largest tank or container, or 10% of the total volume of all tanks and containers in
the area, whichever is larger. There should Pe no overflow from the secondary
containment area, which should Pe designed, constructed, operated and maintained
so that the materials can Pe recovered and so that polluting materials cannot escape
directly or indirectly to any puPlic sewer system or to surface waters or ground water.
Records should Pe maintained that document all such tanks and stored materials and
their associated secondary containment area.
• Secondary containment valves: Secondary containment area valves that could
provide stormwater and retained fluids access to a stormwater conveyance system
should Pe controlled Py manually activated valves or other similar devices (these should
Pe secured and remain closed with a locking mechanism). Stormwater that
accumulates in the containment area should Pe visually inspected to ensure no leaks or
spills have occurred Pefore release of the accumulated stormwater. Records should Pe
maintained that document the individual making the oPservation, the description of
the accumulated stormwater, and the date and time of the release.
This effluent limit also requires that operators keep all industrial equipment and systems in
effective operating condition in order to minimize pollutant discharges. Therefore, the
operator must conduct regular maintenance and self-inspections (per Part 3) for all storage
tanks and secondary containment areas. Operators must look for leaks/spills, cracks,
corrosion, etc., to identify deficiencies and/or proPlem components such as fittings, pipe
connections and valves. For any deficiencies identified, operators must conduct the
necessary maintenance, or if applicaPle, take corrective action in accordance with Part
5.1.
Part 2.1.2.5 Erosion and Sediment Controls
This Part requires operators to minimize pollutant discharges from erosion Py staPilizing
exposed soils at the facility in order to minimize pollutant discharges and placing flow
velocity dissipation devices at discharge locations. Velocity dissipation should control
channel and streamPank erosion and scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points.
Part 2.1.2.5 also requires the use of structural and non-structural controls to minimize the
discharge of sediment. EPA requires that whenever polymers and/or other chemical
treatment will Pe used for erosion control, the polymers and/or chemicals and their purpose
must Pe identified in the SWPPP.
The purpose of this requirement is to prevent discharges of sediment from exposed areas of
industrial sites that, due to construction activities, steep slopes, sandy soils or other causes,
are prone to soil erosion. Construction and other earth-disturPing activities often result in the
exposure of underlying soil to wind and precipitation, while steep slopes or sandy soils may
not Pe aPle to hold plant life so that soils are exposed, leading to erosion and the need for
erosion controls.
The types of erosion controls for exposed areas operators should consider first include
seeding, mulching and sodding to prevent soil from Pecoming dislodged. Sediment control
practices such as silt fences, sediment ponds, and staPilized entrances trap sediment after
it has eroded. Sediment control practices, such as flow velocity dissipaters and sediment
catchers, must Pe used to Pack up erosion control practices. There are many resources
Page 41 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
available to help operators select appropriate control measures for erosion and sediment,
including EPA's Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities website at:
https://www.epa.qov/npdes/stormwater-discharqes-construction-activities.
EPA acknowledges that portions of some industrial facilities are intended to be left
unvegetated or unstabilized. For example, sizable unpaved earthen areas are common at
large steel mills. For such areas, compaction of the soil, covering with gravel, and/or
application of a soil binder may be adequate erosion control measures for meeting Part
2.1.2.5.
See Request for Comment 3 regarding whether the permit should include an eligibility criterion
for operators who plan to add "cationic treatment chemicals" to stormwater and/or authorized
non-stormwater prior to discharge.
Part 2.1.2.6 Management of Runoff
This Part requires operators to divert, infiltrate, reuse, contain, or otherwise reduce
stormwater runoff to minimize pollutants in the discharge, and to employ practices that
direct the flow of stormwater away from areas of exposed materials or pollutant sources.
Such practices can also be used to divert polluted runoff to natural areas or locations
where other kinds of treatment occurs.
To meet this effluent limit, operators may consider vegetative swales, collection and reuse
of stormwater, inlet controls, snow management, infiltration devices, and wet
detention/retention basins.
In selecting, designing, installing, and implementing appropriate control measures,
operators are encouraged to consult with EPA's resources relating to runoff management,
including the sector-specific Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series,
(https://www.epa.gOv/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities#factsheets) and
any similar state or tribal resources.
If infiltration is a selected control, permittees should pay special attention to the discussion
at the end of the section of the Fact Sheet entitled: Stormwater infiltration control measures
that meet the definition of a Class V Injection Well could be subject to the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Regulations.
Part 2.1.2.7 Salt Storage Piles or Pile Containing Salt
This Part requires that operators enclose or cover piles completely or partially comprised of
salt in order to minimize pollutant discharges. Operators must also implement appropriate
measures to minimize the exposure of the piles during the adding to or removing from
processes. Operators do not need to enclose or cover piles if stormwater from the piles is
not discharged or if discharges from the piles are authorized under another NPDES permit.
Options for meeting the salt pile effluent limit include covering the piles or eliminating the
discharge from such areas of the facility. Preventing exposure of piles to stormwater or run-
on also eliminates the economic loss from materials being dissolved and washed away. A
permanent under-roof storage facility is the best way to protect chemicals from
precipitation and runoff, but where this is not possible, salt piles can be located on
impermeable bituminous pads and covered with a waterproof cover.
Pgrt 2.1.2.8 Employee Troining
This Part requires operators to train all employees who work in areas where industrial
materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, or who are responsible for implementing
activities necessary to meet the limits and conditions of the permit. This includes all
Page 42 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
members of the stormwater pollution prevention team identified in Part 6.2.1. The permit
specifies the types of personnel and the tasks they perform that must be trained, so that
they understand the MSGP's requirements and their specific responsibilities with respect to
those requirements (e.g., personnel who are responsible for the design, installation,
maintenance, and/or repair of controls (including pollution prevention measures). For those
personnel needing training, the following areas must be covered, if applicable to the
person's duties:
• An overview of what is in the SWPPP;
• Spill response procedures, good housekeeping, maintenance requirements, and
material management practices;
• The location of all controls on the site required by the permit, and how they are to be
maintained;
• The proper procedures to follow with respect to the permit's pollution prevention
requirements;
• When and how to conduct inspections, record applicable findings, and take corrective
actions; and
• The facility's emergency procedures, if applicable per Part 2.1.1.
Training sessions should be conducted at least annually to assure adequate understanding
of the objectives of the control measures and the individual responsibilities of each
employee. More frequent training may be appropriate at facilities with high employee
turnover or where stormwater programs are more complicated or multi-faceted. Often,
training could be a part of routine employee meetings for safety or fire protection.
Contractor personnel also must be trained in relevant aspects of stormwater pollution
prevention, as appropriate.
Part 2.1.2.9 Non-Stormwater Discharges
This Part specifies that the operator must evaluate for the presence of non-stormwater
discharges; the operator must eliminate any non-stormwater discharges not explicitly
authorized in Part 1.2.2 or covered by another NPDES permit. Other than the exclusive list of
authorized non-stormwater discharges listed in Part 1.2.2, non-stormwater discharges
requiring NPDES permit coverage are not, per Part 1.1.3, authorized under the MSGP.
Additionally, Part 2.1.2.9 requires that all wash water, with the exception of discharges from
pavement wash water and routine building washdown per Part 1.2.2., drain to a sanitary
sewer, sump or other appropriate collection system (i.e., not the stormwater drainage
system). Additionally, this permit does not authorize the discharge of vehicle and
equipment wash water, including tank cleaning operations. These wastewaters must be
covered under a separate NPDES permit, discharged to a sanitary sewer in accordance
with applicable industrial pretreatment requirements, or disposed of otherwise in
accordance with applicable law. Operators who need help in finding and eliminating
unauthorized discharges may find the following guidance helpful: Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination: A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical
Assessments, Chapters 7, 8, 9 at:
https://www3.epa.aov/npdes/pubs/idde manualwithappendices.pdf.
Part 2.1.2.10 Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking of Industrial Materials
This Pgrt requires operators to control generation of dust ond off-site tracking of raw, final, or
waste materials in order to minimize pollutant discharges. Dust control practices can
reduce the activities and air movement that cause dust to be generated. Airborne
particles pose a dual threat to the environment and human health. Dust carried off-site
Page 43 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
increases the likelihood of water pollution. Control measures to minimize the generation of
dust include:
• Vegetative Cover. In areas not expected to handle vehicle traffic, vegetative
staPilization of disturPed soil is often desiraPle. Such a practice reduces wind velocity at
ground level, thus reducing the potential for dust to Pecome airPorne.
• Mulch. Mulching can Pe a quick and effective means of dust control for a recently
disturPed area.
• Wind Breaks. Wind Preaks are Parriers (either natural or constructed) that reduce wind
velocity through a site which then reduces the possiPility of suspended particles. Wind
breaks can be trees or shrubs left in place during site clearing or constructed barriers
such as a wind fence, snow fence, tarp curtain, hay bale, crate wall or sedimentwall.
• Stone. Stone can be an effective dust deterrent in areas where vegetation cannot be
established.
• Spray-on Chemical Soil Treatments (Palliatives). Examples of chemical adhesives
include anionic asphalt emulsion, latex emulsion, resin-water emulsions and calcium
chloride. Chemical palliatives should be used only on mineral soils. When considering
chemical application to suppress dust, determine whether the chemical is
biodegradable or water-soluble and what effect its application could have on the
surrounding environment, including waterbodies and wildlife.
To reduce vehicle tracking of materials, the operator should keep stored materials or
materials that could be spilled away from all roads within the site. Specific measures such as
setting up a wash site or separate pad to clean vehicles prior to their leaving the site may
be effective at minimizing pollutant discharges from vehicle tracking as well (provided the
wash water is not discharged).
Stormwater Infiltration Control Measures Subject to the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Regulations
EPA promotes stormwater infiltration through green infrastructure as a cost-effective,
sustainable, and environmentally friendly approach to stormwater management. The
primary goals of this effort are to reduce stormwater discharge volume and contaminants,
and sewer overflow events by using vegetation, soils, natural processes, and infiltration
technologies to soak, store, infiltrate and/or treat stormwater. When implementing
stormwater infiltration, operators should ensure that ground water is protected because
under certain conditions, infiltration could allow contaminants to reach underground
sources of drinking water. For example, certain geologic and hydrologic conditions could
create ready pathways for pollutants in the stormwater to enter the receiving aquifers.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established, in part, to protect the nation's
drinking water. As required by SDWA, EPA established a regulatory program to prevent
underground injection which endangers underground drinking water sources and
promulgated regulations containing minimum requirements for state underground injection
control (UIC) programs. (See 42 U.S.C.' 300h-l; 40 C.F.R. Parts 144-146). Once EPA approves
a state or tribal UIC program as meeting the requirements of SDWA and EPA's
implementing regulations, the state or tribe has primary enforcement responsibility for the
UIC program. If a state does not apply for primacy, EPA retains direct implementation
authority. State, tribal, or federal UIC regulations would apply to any stormwater infiltration
control measures that could be classified as an Injection Well.
EPA's regulations define "well injection" as the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a
well. A "well" is defined as a bored, drilled or driven shaft, or dug hole whose depth is
greater than its largest surface dimension; an improved sinkhole; or a subsurface fluid
Page 44 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
distribution system. Subsurface fluid disfribufion sysfem means an assemblage of perforated
pipes, drain tiles or other similar mechanisms intended to distribute fluids below the surface
of the ground. Commercially manufactured or proprietary infiltration devices may fall into
this category. Improved sinkhole means a naturally occurring karst depression or other
natural crevice found in volcanic terrain and other geologic settings that has been
engineered for the purpose of directing and emplacing fluids into the subsurface.
Infiltration control measures that are also injection wells would be subject to UIC regulations
and would likely be classified as Class V Injection Wells. Most Class V wells are authorized by
rule if operators submit inventory information to the proper authority (state, tribe, or EPA), do
not endanger underground sources of drinking water, and are properly abandoned when
no longer in use. An operator may also be required to get a Class V permit or take other
actions to prevent potential degradation of underground sources of drinking water.
Operators can find out the status of their state's UIC program at https://www.epa.gov/uic.
On June 13, 2008, EPA issued a policy memo that clarified which green infrastructure
stormwater infiltration practices have the potential to be regulated as Class V wells by the
UIC program. A copy of this memo is available on EPA's website at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
10/documents/epamemoinfiltrationclassvwells.pdf.
Part 2.1.3 Numeric Effluent Limitations Based on Effluent Limitations Guidelines
This Part provides the applicable federal effluent limitations guidelines that facilities must
comply with. The following table describes where these limits can be found in the permit.
Regulated Activity
40 CFR Part/Subpart
Effluent
Limitation
Discharges resulting from spray down or
intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage
areas
Part 429, Subpart 1
See Part 8.A.7
Runoff from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities
Part 418, Subpart A
See Part 8.C.4
Runoff from asphalt emulsion facilities
Part 443, Subpart A
See Part 8.D.4
Runoff from material storage piles at
cement manufacturing facilities
Part 411, Subpart C
See Part 8.E.5
Mine dewatering discharges at crushed
stone, construction sand and gravel, or
industrial sand mining facilities
Part 436, Subparts B,
C, or D
See Part 8.J.9
Runoff from hazardous waste landfills
Part 445, Subpart A
See Part 8.K.6
Runoff from non-hazardous waste landfills
Part 445, Subpart B
See Part 8.L.10
Runoff from coal storage piles at steam
electric generating facilities
Part 423
See Part 8.0.8
Runoff containing urea from airfield
pavement deicing at existing and new
primary airports with 1,000 or more annual
non-propeller aircraft departures
Part 449
See Part 8.S.8
Page 45 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 2.2 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
The 2020 MSGP includes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) to ensure that MSGP
authorized discharges will be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards, pursuant to CWA section 301 (b)(1)(C) and 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1). The provisions of
Part 2.2 constitute the WQBELs of the 2015 MSGP, and supplement the permit's technology-
based effluent limits in Part 2.1. The following is a list of the permit's WQBELs:
• Control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards of all
affected states or tribes (See Part 2.2.1);
• Implement any additional measures that are necessary to be consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of the applicable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and
its wasteload allocation (See Part 2.2.2.1). For discharges to impaired waters without a
TMDL, conduct impaired waters monitoring (See Part 2.2.2.2). Additionally, new
discharges to impaired waters must implement any measures required per the Part
1.1.6.2 eligibility requirements;
• Implement any additional measures that EPA determines are necessary to comply with
applicable antidegradation requirements for discharges to Tier 2 or 2.5 waters (see Part
2.2.3).
Prior to or after initial discharge authorization, EPA may require operators to implement
additional measures on a facility-specific basis, or require operators to obtain coverage
under an individual permit, if information in the NOI, required reports, or other sources
indicates that, after complying with the technology-based limits in Part 2.1 and the WQBELs
in Part 2.2, discharges will not be controlled as necessary to meet water quality standards.
Facilities that achieve the permit's technology-based limits through the careful selection,
design, installation, and implementation of effective control measures are likely to be
controlling their stormwater discharges to a degree that would make additional water
quality-based measures unnecessary. However, to ensure that this is so, the permit contains
additional provisions in Part 2.2, which, along with the BAT/BPT/BCT limits in the permit, are
as stringent as necessary to achieve water quality standards.
The WQBELs included in the permit continue to be non-numeric. EPA relies on a narrative
limit to ensure discharges are controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards, and to ensure that additional measures are employed where necessary to meet
the narrative WQBELs, or to be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of an
applicable TMDL and its WLA, or to comply with a state or tribe's antidegradation
requirements. This is a reasonable approach for the 2020 MSGP, based on the following
considerations:
• Limited waterbody information available about individual dischargers: EPA will not
know prior to receiving NOIs where any new facilities are located and where they will
discharge. In addition, existing facilities' NOI data from earlier permits has typically been
difficult to access, and this factor plus other NOI system limitations have restricted the
number and quality of NOI reviews that EPA could do. Facility type and location, and
receiving water information are necessary for EPA to determine what, if any, special
protections apply to that water. To assist operators in determining their receiving water
information, EPA has a tool in NeT that will automatically identify their receiving water(s)
and impairment status. EPA's receipt of the NOI and receiving water information may
then trigger a review. For now, however, it is not possible to know what specific
requirements apply to facilities a priori, and to include any such requirements in a
general permit.
Page 46 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
• Review of the NOI and applicable watershed documents is the appropriate forum for
deriving facility-specific WQBELs: Once EPA receives an NOI for the new permit, the
Agency will Pe Petter aPle to assess whether any more protective control measures are
necessary. For instance, if an NOI indicates that the facility will discharge to an impaired
waterPody with an EPA-approved or estaPlished TMDL, EPA can analyze the relevant
information to determine whether any additional control measures are necessary to
meet the permit's effluent limits and whether discharges will Pe consistent with the TMDL
and WLAs. If the operator is unwilling or unaPle to implement such additional control
measures (or other measures that would yield the same results), EPA may notify the
facility that it is not eligiPle for MSGP coverage and must instead apply for an individual
permit. EPA may undertake a similar assessment process when facilities indicate that
they are discharging to a waterPody designated as Tier 2 or 2.5 for antidegradation
purposes.
Part 2.2.1 Water Quality Standards
This Part specifies that operators must control their discharge as necessary to meet
applicaPle water quality standards of all affected states. EPA expects that compliance
with the other conditions in the 2020 MSGP (e.g., the technology-Pased limits, corrective
actions) will result in discharges that are controlled as necessary to meet applicaPle water
quality standards. However, if an operator Pecomes aware, or EPA determines, that a
discharge does not meet applicaPle water quality standards, corrective actions are
required per Part 5. In addition, any time EPA determines that the discharge is not meeting
the WQBEL (i.e., the discharge is not controlled as necessary to meet applicaPle water
quality standards), the Agency may inform the operator that additional measures are
needed, or require that the operator instead apply for an individual permit. The same
applies to situations where additional measures are necessary for discharges to Pe
consistent with an availaPle wasteload allocation in an EPA-estaPlished or approved TMDL.
In such situations, EPA will Pe availaPle to help operators understand what they need to do
to ensure that their discharges are consistent with any availaPle wasteload allocations.
Part 2.2.2 Discharges to Water Quality-Impaired Waters
This Part includes the requirements applicaPle to discharges to impaired waters. Facilities
will Pe considered to discharge to an impaired water if the first water of the United States
discharged to is:
• Identified Py a state, triPe, or EPA, pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA, as not
meeting an applicaPle water quality standard, or;
• Addressed Py an EPA-approved or estaPlished TMDL, or;
• Not in either of the aPove categories Put the waterPody is covered Py a pollution
control program that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 130.7(b)(1).
Part 2.2.2.1 Existing Discharge to an Impaired Water with an EPA-Approved or Established TMDL
This Part specifies EPA may inform operators that additional requirements are necessary for
the discharge to be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of an applicable
TMDL and its wasteload allocation (WLA). Water quality-based effluent limits must be
"consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available wasteload allocation
for the discharge," pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d) (1) (vii) (B). Where an operator indicates on
its NOI that a discharge is to one of the types of waters this Part covers, EPA will review the
applicable TMDL to determine whether it includes provisions that apply to the individual
discharger or its industrial sector. If so, EPA will determine whether compliance with the
existing permit limits is sufficient or what additional measures are necessary for the
discharge to be consistent with the WLA. Alternatively, EPA may decide an individual
Page 47 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
permit application is necessary. Because WLAs for stormwater discharges may Pe specified
in many different formats, it has not always Peen clear to operators what they need to do
to ensure that their discharge is consistent with availaPle WLAs. EPA has thus estaPlished a
process to ensure that these requirements are properly interpreted and communicated Py
EPA to the facility in a way that isimplementaPle.
Part 2.2.2.2 Existing Discharge to an Impaired Water without an EPA-Approved or Established
TMDL
This Part reiterates that facilities discharging to impaired waters without an EPA-approved or
estaPlished TMDL must still control their discharges as necessary to meet water quality
standards (as also required per Part 2.2.1). EPA expects an operator will achieve this if it
complies with the other requirements in the permit, including monitoring requirements
applicaPle to impaired waters discharges in Part 4.2.4. However, if information in the NOI,
required reports, or from other sources indicates that discharges are not controlled as
necessary to meet applicaPle water quality standards, EPA may inform an operator that it
needs to implement additional measures on a site-specific Pasis to ensure the WQBEL is
met, or, alternatively, of the need to apply for an individual permit.
Part 2.2.2.3 New Discharger or New Source to an Impaired Water
This Part requires an operator that is a "new source" or meet the definition of a "new
discharger" (see Appendix A) that discharge to impaired waters to maintain for the permit
term any control measures in good working order that it has implemented to meet the
eligiPility requirements of Part 1.1.6.2.
Pgrt 2.2.3 Tier 2 Antidearadation Requirements for New Dischorgers or Increosed Discharges
This provision applies to new dischargers, new sources, and existing dischargers whose
discharges directly to waters designated Py a state or triPe as Tier 2 or 2.5 (defined in
Appendix A) have increased. (In general, any existing discharger required to notify EPA of
an increased discharge consistent with Part 7.1 (i.e., a "planned changes" report) will Pe
considered to have an increased discharge.) Such dischargers must, for antidegradation
purposes implement any additional measures that EPA determines are necessary to comply
with the permit's WQBEL, including the applicaPle state or federal antidegradation
requirements (state and triPal water quality standards are required to contain an
antidegradation policy pursuant to 40 CFR 131.12). EPA may also, per the applicaPle
antidegradation policy, notify operators that they cannot Pe covered under the MSGP due
to the unique characteristics of the discharge or the receiving waters, and that they must
apply for an individual permit. Conversely, if EPA does not notify an operator that additional
measures are needed to ensure compliance with antidegradation requirements, the
operator is authorized to discharge under the permit. New dischargers to waters
designated as Tier 3, outstanding national resource waters, as defined in 40 CFR
131.12(a) (3), are not eligiPle for coverage under the 2020 MSGP (see Part 1.1.6.3) and must
apply for an individual permit.
Waters designated as "Tier 2" Py states and triPes can generally Pe descriPed as follows:
Tier 2 protects "high quality" waters — waterPodies where existing conditions are Petter than
necessary to support CWA § 101 (a)(2) "fishaPle/swimmaPle" uses. Some states have
designated waters using criteria which EPA considers to Pe more stringent than the federal
Tier 2 designation, Put less stringent than the federal Tier 3 designation. EPA calls such
waters "Tier 2.5". Water quality may Pe lowered in Tier 2 or Tier 2.5 waters where "allowing
lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social
development in the area in which the waters are located." 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2). The
process for making this determination is what is commonly known as "Tier 2 review." The
essence of a Tier 2 review is an analysis of alternatives to the proposed new or increased
Page 48 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
discharge. 63 Fed. Reg. 36, 742, 36,784 (col. 1) (July 8, 1998). In no case may water quality
be lowered to a level that would interfere with existing or designated uses. 40 CFR
131.12(a)(1), 122.44(d). States have broad discretion in identifying Tier2 waters. 63 Fed. Reg.
at 36,782-83. In addition, states and tribes may adopt what is known as a "significance
threshold." A "significance threshold" is a de minimis level of lowering of water quality
below which the effects on water quality do not require Tier 2 review. Id. at 36,783.
Note about alternate antidearadation designations used by some states
Some states have adopted alternative approaches to designating Tier 2 or Tier 3 waters.
These are collectively referred to as "Tier 2.5" waters since they fall between Tiers 2 and 3 in
terms of characteristics and regulations supporting them. Tier 2.5 waters are commonly
described as providing protection more stringent than Tier 2 but allowing some added
flexibility that a Tier3-designated water (Outstanding National Resource Water) would not.
Refer to Memorandum from William Diamond (Former Director, Standards and Applied
Science Division) to Victoria Binetti (Chief, Region III, Program and Support Branch), June 13,
1991.
Examples of Tier 2.5 waters exist in Massachusetts, which designates "outstanding resource
waters" (ORWs). These waters have exceptional sociologic, recreational, ecological and/or
aesthetic values and are subject to more stringent requirements under both the
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards and the Massachusetts Stormwater Management
Standards. ORWs include vernal pools certified by the Natural Heritage Program of the
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement,
all Class A designated public water supplies with their bordering vegetated wetlands, and
other waters specifically designated. All of the provisions in the MSGP pertaining to Tier 2
waters apply equally to Tier 2.5 waters. And, where there is a reference in this Fact Sheet to
Tier 2 waters, the reader should infer that EPA intends to include Tier 2.5 waters as well.
Part 2.3 Requirements Relating to Endangered Species. Historic Properties, and Federal
CERCLA Sites
This Part requires operators to continue to implement any agreed-upon measures that were
imposed as a condition or prerequisite for becoming eligible under Parts 1.1.4, 1.1.5, and/or
1.1.7 throughout the permit term. Any time an operator becomes aware, or EPA
determines, that discharges and/or discharge-related activities are likely to adversely
affect listed species and/or critical habitat, or cause water quality violations at federal
CERCLA Sites, EPA may impose additional measures on a site- specific basis, or require the
operator to obtain coverage under an individual permit.
Pgrt 3 Inspections
Port 3.1 Routine Focility Inspections
This Part was previously all one, larger section in the 2015 MSGP. For the 2020 MSGP, EPA
proposes to break the section up into different parts (i.e., inspection personnel, areas that
you must inspect, what you must look for during an inspection, and inspection frequency)
to more clearly identify the requirements and improve permit readability for operators.
Port 3.1.1 Inspection Personnel
This Part requires that qualified personnel must perform the inspections with at least one
member of the stormwater pollution prevention team. Qualified personnel, as defined in
Appendix A, are those who are knowledgeable in the principles and practices of industrial
stormwater controls and pollution prevention, and who possess the education and ability to
assess conditions at the industrial facility that could impact stormwater quality, and the
Page 49 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
education and ability to assess the effectiveness of stormwater controls selected and
installed to meet the requirements of the permit. The inspector must consider the results of
visual and analytical monitoring (if any) for the past year when planning and conducting
inspections.
Part 3.1.2 Areas that You Must Inspect
This Part requires operators to conduct inspections during normal facility hours in the
following areas:
• Areas where industrial materials or activities are exposed tostormwater;
• Areas identified in the SWPPP that are potential pollutant sources (see Part5.2.3);
• Areas where spills and leaks have occurred in the past 3years;
• Discharge points; and
• Control measures used to comply with the effluent limits contained in the permit.
Part 3.1.3 What You Must Look for Purina an Inspection
This Part requires that the qualified personnel examine or look out for the following during an
inspection:
• Industrial materials, residue or trash that may have or could come into contact with
stormwater;
• Leaks or spills from industrial equipment, drums, tanks and othercontainers;
• Offsite tracking of industrial or waste materials, or sediment where vehicles enter or exit
the site;
• Tracking or blowing of raw, final or waste materials from areas of no exposure to
exposed areas;
• Control measures needing replacement, maintenance orrepair.
Part 3.1.4 Inspection Frequency
This Part requires the qualified personnel to conduct inspections at least quarterly (i.e., once
each calendar quarter), or in some instances more frequently (e.g., monthly). Increased
frequency (i.e., more than quarterly) may be appropriate for some types of equipment,
processes and stormwater control measures, or areas of the facility with significant activities
and materials exposed to stormwater. For instance, because vehicle and equipment
maintenance and cleaning are particularly dirty activities, EPA recommends that they are
inspected more frequently. In addition, properly functioning controls for these activities,
such as oil-water separators, are very important for an effective stormwater program, and
should also be inspected more frequently (but in no case may be inspected less than
quarterly). In another example, inspection of outdoor areas associated with regular
industrial activity may benefit from more frequent inspections to ensure that the site is
swept, garbage is picked up, drips and spills are cleaned, etc., on a regular basis. The
operator must document the relevant inspection schedules in the SWPPP. During each
calendar year, the operator must conduct at least one of the routine inspections during a
period when a stormwater discharge is occurring. This inspection will enable operators to
better identify sources of pollutants discharged in stormwater from the facility and to
actively observe the effectiveness of control measures implemented to comply with
effluent limits. Operators must also observe discharge points, as defined in Appendix A,
during this inspection, or, if such discharge locations are inaccessible, inspect nearby
downstream locations.
Page 50 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 3.1.5 Exceptions to Routine Facility Inspections for Inactive and Unstaffed Sites
Operators of inactive and unstaffed sites may invoke an exception from routine inspections
if they eliminate all exposure of industrial activities and materials to stormwater, and
document this in the SWPPP. This waiver is availaPle to all sectors covered under the 2020
MSGP. In addition, inactive and unstaffed mines covered under Sectors G, H, and J are
eligiPle for this waiver even if all exposure has not Peen eliminated, due to the unique issues
affecting such facilities, such as the remoteness of many mining sites. Facilities that make
use of this waiver must still implement any necessary control measures to comply with
applicaPle permit requirements and must still conduct an annual inspection.
Part 3.1.6 Routine Facility Inspection Documentation
This Part descriPes the specific information the operator must document for each routine
inspection. Additionally, some industry sectors have specific routine inspection
requirements, which are descriPed in Part 8 of the permit for the relevant sectors. This Part
specifies that the operator conduct any corrective action required as a result of a routine
facility inspection consistent with Part 5 of the permit. This Part also clarifies that if a
discharge visual assessment is performed during a routine facility inspection, the results of
this assessment may Pe included in the same report as the routine facility inspection report.
At a minimum, the operator must document the following for each routine inspection:
• The inspection date and time;
• The name(s) and signature(s) of the inspector(s);
• Weather information;
• All oPservations relating to the implementation of control measures at the facility,
including:
o A description of any discharges occurring at the time of the inspection;
o Any previously unidentified discharges from and/or pollutant sources at the site;
o Any evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants entering the drainage system;
o Observations regarding the physical condition of and around all discharge points,
including any flow dissipation devices, and evidence of pollutants in discharges
and/or the receiving water;
o Any control measures needing maintenance, repairs, orreplacement.
• Any additional control measures needed to comply with the permit requirements;
• Any incidents of noncompliance; and
• A statement, signed and certified in accordance with Appendix B, Subsection 11.
Part 3.2 Quarterly Visual Assessment of Stormwater Discharges
This Part was previously all one, larger section in the 2015 MSGP. For the 2020 MSGP, EPA
proposes to break the section up into different parts (i.e., visual assessment frequency,
visual assessment procedures, and visual assessment documentation) to more clearly
identify the requirements and improve permit readability for operators
Quarterly visual assessments of stormwater discharges provide a useful and inexpensive
means for operators to evaluate the effectiveness of their control measures. Although the
visual examination cannot assess the chemical properties of the facility's stormwater
discharges, the examination will provide meaningful results upon which the operator may
Page 51 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
act quickly. All industrial sectors covered by the 2020 MSGP must conduct these
examinations.
Part 3.2.1 Visual Assessment Frequency
This Part requires that operators collect and visually examine a grab sample of stormwater
discharges from each discharge point (except as noted in Part 3.2.3) once each quarter for
the entire permit term. These samples are not required to be collected consistent with 40
CFR Part 136 procedures but must be collected in such a manner that the samples are
representative of the stormwater discharge. Guidance on monitoring is available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
11/documents/msqp monitoring guide.pdf.
Part 3.2.2 Visual Assessment Frequency
This Part requires the operator to visually assess the sample in a clean, colorless glass or
plastic container for the presence of color, odor, clarity, floating solids, settled solids,
suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, and other obvious indicators of stormwater pollution. No
analytical tests are required to be performed on these samples. The operator must take the
grab samples within the first 30 minutes or a soon as practicable after the occurrence of an
actual discharge from the site (including documentation of why sampling was not
practicable within the first 30 minutes, if applicable). For storm events, operators must make
the assessment on discharges that occur at least 72 hours (three days) from the previous
discharge. The 72-hour (three-day) storm interval does not apply if the operator can
document that less than a 72-hour (three-day) interval is representative for local storm
events during the sampling period. Whenever the visual assessment shows evidence of
stormwater pollution, corrective action procedures must be initiated per Part 5.
Pqrt 3.2.3 Visual Assessment Frequency
This Part requires the operator to document the results of the visual assessments in a report
maintained onsite with the SWPPP. The report must include the sample location, date and
time of both sample collection and visual assessment, personnel collecting the sample and
performing visual assessments and their signatures, nature of the discharge (i.e., runoff or
snowmelt), results of the observations, and probable sources of any observed stormwater
contamination.
When conducting a stormwater visual examination, the pollution prevention team, or
individual team member, must attempt to relate the results of the examination to potential
sources of stormwater contamination on the site. For example, should an oil sheen be
observed, facility personnel (preferably members of the pollution prevention team) must
conduct an inspection of the area of the site draining to the examined discharge to look
for sources of spilled oil, leaks, etc. If a source can be located, then this information would
necessitate that the operator immediately conduct a clean-up of the pollutant source,
and/or to revise control measures to minimize the contaminant source.
Pqrt 3.2.4 Exceptions to Quqrterly Visual Assessments
This Part includes the same exceptions from the 2015 MSGP to these requirements in order
to account for circumstances during which conducting quarterly visual assessments may
not be feasible, namely during adverse (e.g., dangerous) weather conditions, or in parts of
the country subject to climates with irregular stormwater discharges or to large amounts of
snowfall. Where these types of conditions prevent a facility from performing these
assessments quarterly, operators may modify their assessment schedule such that the four
assessments are conducted over the course of the year during periods when discharges,
be it from rain or snow, actually occur and can be safely observed.
Page 52 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Operators of inactive and unstaffed facilities may invoke a visual assessment exception if
they eliminate all exposure of industrial activities and materials to stormwater, and
document this in the SWPPP. This waiver is availaPle to all sectors covered under the 2020
MSGP. In addition, inactive and unstaffed mines covered under Sectors G, H, and J are
eligiPle for this waiver even if all exposure has not Peen eliminated due to the unique issues
affecting such facilities, such as the remoteness of many mining sites. Facilities that make
use of this waiver must still implement any necessary control measures to comply with
applicaPle permit requirements.
Operators with two or more essentially identical discharge points may also elect to conduct
a visual assessment at just one of these discharge points each quarter, Put must perform
their quarterly assessments on a rotating Pasis to ensure that they periodically oPserve each
suPstantially identical discharge points throughout the period of permit coverage. If the
operator identifies stormwater contamination through visual monitoring performed at a
suPstantially identical discharge point, the operator must assess and modify his/her control
measures as appropriate for each discharge point represented Py the monitored discharge
point. This approach ensures that operators will assess discharges from the entire site over
the term of the permit and will address any identified proPlems at all suPstantially identical
discharge points where the proPlem may Pe occurring.
Part 4 Monitoring
This Part was previously Part 6 in the 2015 MSGP. For the 2020 MSGP, EPA proposes moving it
to Part 4, so that operators read the monitoring requirements Pefore the corrective action
and Additional Implementation Measures (AIM) requirements in Part 5 and the SWPPP
documentation requirements in Part 6.
This Part requires that operators collect, analyze, and document stormwater samples
consistent with the procedures descriPed in within Part 6 and Appendix B, SuPsections 10 -
12, and any additional sector-specific orstate/triPal-specific requirements in Parts 8 and 9,
respectively.
Part 4.1 Monitoring Procedures
The 2020 MSGP requires certain facilities to sample and analyze their stormwater discharges
as a way to assess the effectiveness of control measures in meeting the effluent limits
contained in the permit. Analytical monitoring measures the concentration of a pollutant in
a stormwater discharge. Analytical results are quantitative and therefore can Pe used to
compare discharge results and to quantify the effectiveness of stormwater control
measures, including identifying pollutants that are not Peing sufficiently controlled.
Part 4.1 identifies procedures for collecting samples and identifies where, when, and what
to sample. These requirements are unchanged from those in the 2015 MSGP, with the
addition of an explicit clarification that composite sampling is allowed for Penchmark
monitoring. These requirements are in addition to the standard permit conditions descriPed
in Appendix B, SuPsection B.10.
Part 4.1.1 Monitored Discharge Points
The monitoring requirements in the permit apply to each discharge point discharging
stormwater associated with industrial activity, unless the operator qualifies for the
suPstantially identical discharge point (SIDP) exemption as descriPed in this section (except
for numeric effluent limitation monitoring; see Pelow). This SIDP provision provides facilities
that have multiple stormwater discharge points with a means to reduce the numPer of
discharge points that must Pe sampled and analyzed while still providing monitoring data
that are indicative of discharges from each discharge point. This may result in a suPstantial
Page 53 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
reduction of resources required for a facility to comply with analytical monitoring
requirements. To Pe considered a SIDP, the discharge point must have generally similar
industrial activities, control measures, exposed materials that may significantly contriPute
pollutants to stormwater, and runoff coefficients of their drainage areas. When operators
Pelieve their facility has two or more discharge points that qualify as suPstantially identical,
they may monitor only one of these discharge points and report that the quantitative data
also apply to the other SIDPs. Operators must also document the location of each of the
SIDPs and explain why the SIDPs are expected to discharge suPstantially identical
stormwater, addressing each of the factors to Pe considered in this determination (industrial
activities, control measures, exposed materials and runoff coefficients). Operators do not
need advance EPA approval for this determination; however, EPA may suPsequently
determine that discharge points are not suPstantially identical and require sampling of
additional discharge points. EPA clarifies in Part 4.1.1 that the allowance for monitoring only
one of the SIDPs is not applicaPle to any discharge point with numeric effluent limitations.
Operators must monitor each discharge point covered Py a numeric effluent limitation as
identified in Part 4.2.2.
Part 4.1.2 Commingled Discharges
This Part requires that if stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity commingle
with discharges not authorized Py the MSGP (e.g., unregulated stormwater or other
permitted wastewater), then the operator must sample the stormwater discharge Pefore it
mixes with the other discharges when practicaPle. This provision is intended to ensure that
monitoring results are representative of discharges covered under the permit and not
indicative of other discharges from the facility. EPA acknowledges that in certain instances,
such as when authorized stormwater discharges are commingled with other waste streams
prior to on-site treatment, sampling only authorized stormwater may PeimpracticaPle.
Pgrt 4.1.3 Measurable Storm Events
This Part specifies the characteristics of a measuraPle storm event as an event that results in
a discharge from the permitted facility. By defining a storm event as one that results in a
discharge, it affords the operator flexibility to sample during any storm event that produces
a discharge, rather than having to ensure that a minimum magnitude is reached. The
permit requires that operators collect samples from the discharge resulting from a storm
event that occurs at least 72 hours (3 days) after a previous measurable storm event. The
72-hour (3-day) period is included in an attempt to eliminate monitoring discharges soon
after a previous storm event washed away residual pollutants; operators may waive this
requirement where they document that less than a 72-hour (3-day) interval is representative
for local storm events during the season when sampling is being conducted. The permit
allows for sampling of snowmelt in addition to stormwater. The 72-hour (3-day) requirement
does not apply to snowmelt as the actual discharge is not clearly tied to a specific snow
event (i.e., may be the accumulation from multiple events). The permit also specifies the
type of documentation required to show consistency with this requirement.
Pgrt 4.1.4 Sample Type
This Part specifies that operators must take a minimum of one grab sample from the
measurable storm event being monitored. This will allow operators to make accurate
comparisons of monitoring results to the corresponding benchmark threshold levels or
effluent limitations. Operators must take the grab sample during the first 30 minutes of the
discharge, except for snowmelt monitoring which has no 30-minute requirement since (1)
runoff typically does not occur during a snow event (2) collecting a snowmelt sample within
30 minutes of commencement of discharge would very likely be impractical (because the
snow will not have melted yet), and (3) the "first flush" effects of snowmelt are not as well
Page 54 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
defined (i.e., the time when the highest pollutant concentrations occur). If operators collect
more than one graP sample, only those samples the operator collects during the first 30
minutes of discharge are to Pe used for performing any necessary analyses. If it is not
possiPle to collect a graP sample during the first 30 minutes, facilities can take a graP
sample as soon as possiPle, Put the operator must document and keep with the SWPPP an
explanation of why a graP sample during the first 30 minutes could not Pe done.
EPA is proposing that operators also Pe allowed to use composite sampling for Penchmark
monitoring, as the NRC study recommended. EPA is not proposing that composite sampling
Pe required. Composite samples can provide a more comprehensive characterization of
the facility's discharge than graP samples Put can Pe costlier in some ways. EPA had
allowed facilities to use composite sampling in previous versions of the MSGP, but in this
proposal, EPA is explicitly allowing composite sampling except for those parameters that
require a short holding time before processing, such as pH and those parameters that can
degrade or transform quickly.
Composite sampling may be manual or automated. For manual sampling, a facility would
collect multiple grab samples during a storm event and combine portions of each grab
sample to form a single composite sample that is then analyzed. For automated sampling,
a facility would install an automatic sampler at the end of a flume, weir, or other similar
device to direct the stormwater to a collection point. The sampler could be set up to
collect samples on some interval, and, depending on the equipment, may be able to
combine individual samples automatically into a composite sample. Automated samplers
can also collect either flow-weighted or time-weighted composites. Using automated
samplers can eliminate the need for a person to physically collect samples, which can be
helpful if a storm happens outside of normal business hours. These samplers can lower labor
costs and mitigate any safety concerns but require maintenance which would not
otherwise be required if done manually. Facilities may also find that electronic sensors and
data loggers used in the field can be a cost-effective way to monitor parameters like
turbidity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH.
Part 4.1.5 Adverse Weather Conditions
When adverse weather conditions make sampling dangerous, storm event monitoring may
be postponed until the next discharge event. This provision applies to serious weather
conditions such as lightning, flash flooding, and high winds. This provision should not be used
as an excuse for not conducting sampling under conditions associated with more typical
storm events. Adverse weather conditions do not exempt operators from having to file a
benchmark monitoring report in accordance with the corresponding reporting period. In
many cases, sampling during a subsequent non-hazardous storm event may still be possible
during the reporting period. Where this is not possible, operators are still required to report
the inability to monitor as "no data" during the usual reporting period. This provision applies
to all monitoring requirements of the permit.
Part 4.1.6 Climates Where Limited Rainfall Occurs Purina Parts of the Year or Freezing
Conditions Exist that Prevent Discharges
This Part provides for the implementation of alternative monitoring schedules for facilities
located in arid and semi-arid climates, or in areas subject to snow or prolonged freezing.
Alternate monitoring schedules allow permittees the flexibility to allocate their resources
effectively to capture the required number of stormwater discharge events during the
permit term. This flexibility will yield a more accurate characterization of pollutant
concentrations in facility stormwater discharges during times of the year when precipitation
is actually occurring, and during snowmelt discharges in areas subject to extended winter
seasons and prolonged freezing. This special exception will provide EPA with more data
Page 55 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
that can be used to evaluate facility pollutant levels. Incumbent with this flexibility is
operators' responsibility to identify those periods during which discharges are most likely to
occur and establish a schedule distributing the required monitoring events during those
periods.
Part 4.1.7 Monitoring Periods
This Part specifies that the monitoring requirements commence during the first full calendar
quarter following either [insert 90 days after permit effective date] or following the date of
authorization to discharge, whichever date comes later. For quarterly benchmark
monitoring, this Part defines the calendar quarters during which monitoring must occur and
also describes when the first monitoring quarter is to commence. Operators in climates with
irregular stormwater discharges may define alternate monitoring periods, as described
above, provided that the operator keep documentation of the revised schedule with the
SWPPP. Note that EPA's DMR system will automatically generate pre-populated discharge
monitoring report (DMR) forms based on the facility's sector and other information provided
in the NOI form.
Part 4.1.8 Monitoring for Authorized Non-Stormwater Discharges
This Part states that operators are only required to monitor authorized non-stormwater
discharges in Part 1.2.2 when they are commingled with stormwater discharges associated
with industrial activity.
Part 4.1.9 Monitoring Reports
This Part specifies that monitoring data must be reported using EPA's electronic DMR tool as
described in Part 7.4 (unless a waiver from electronic reporting has been granted from the
EPA Regional Office, in which case a paper DMR form may be submitted.)
Pgrt 4.2 Reguired Monitoring
The 2020 MSGP contains five types of monitoring requirements:
• Benchmark monitoring (Part4.2.1);
• Effluent limitations monitoring (Part 4.2.2);
• State- or tribal-specific monitoring (Part 4.2.3);
• Impaired waters monitoring (Part 4.2.4); and
• Other monitoring required by EPA (Part 4.2.5).
The frequency of monitoring depends on which of these five types of monitoring applies to
each permitted facility. If any of these monitoring requirements overlap, operators may use
a single sample to comply with those overlapping requirements. The permit also specifies
that when an effluent limitation is lower than the benchmark threshold for the same
pollutant5, the Additional Implementation Measure (AIM) trigger is based on an
exceedance of the effluent limitation, which would subject the facility to the AIM
requirements of Part 5.2. EPA clarifies however that benchmark thresholds are not effluent
limitations. See Part 4.2.1.
EPA is considering a tiered approach to monitoring in the proposed 2020 MSGP as
suggested by the NRC study. The proposed approach would include:
5 Note that benchmarks thresholds are not effluent limitations, see Part 4.2.1 of the Permit.
Page 56 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
• A possible "inspection-only" option in lieu of benchmark monitoring available to low-risk
facilities (see Part 4.2.1.1);
• A new category of benchmark monitoring parameters called universal benchmark
monitoring (pH, TSS, and COD) that applies to all sectors (see Parts 4.2 and 8);
• Existing sector-specific benchmark monitoring parameters in the 2015 MSGP and any
additionally proposed sector-specific benchmark monitoring parameters that are
finalized (see Parts 4.2 and 8); and
• Continued benchmark monitoring based on a repeated or significant exceedance of a
benchmark threshold as proposed in the Additional Implementation Measures (AIM)
process (see Part 5).
Part 4.2.1 Benchmark Monitoring
This permit requires benchmark monitoring as an indicator of the performance of facilities'
stormwater control measures. Since first issuance of the MSGP in 1995, benchmark
monitoring has been employed as a means by which to measure the concentration of a
pollutant in a facility's industrial stormwater discharges. See 60 FR 50804. Analytical results
from benchmark monitoring are quantitative and therefore can be used to compare results
from discharge to discharge and to quantify any improvement in stormwater quality
attributable to the stormwater control measures, or to identify a pollutant that is not being
adequately controlled. The benchmark thresholds are the pollutant concentrations above
which represent a level of concern. The level of concern is a concentration at which a
stormwater discharge could potentially impair or contribute to impairing water quality or
affect human health from ingestion of water or fish. The benchmarks are also set at a level,
that if below, a facility's discharges pose less potential for a water quality concern. As such,
the benchmarks provide an appropriate level to determine whether a facility's stormwater
control measures are successfully implemented. See 60 FR 50804 for a discussion on the
origin of the MSGP's benchmarks.
The 2019 NRC Study on industrial stormwater noted that some stakeholders have described
benchmark monitoring as overly burdensome to industries and producing data that go
unutilized. On the other hand, other stakeholders have expressed concern that if
stormwater problems are observed through benchmark monitoring, the mechanisms to
ensure issues are effectively addressed are lacking. EPA is aware that some stakeholders
have also suggested that EPA completely discontinue benchmark monitoring and that
operators, and EPA, should rely on annual reporting and quarterly visual assessments as the
main mechanisms to assess stormwater control effectiveness at industrial facilities.
Benchmark monitoring, annual reports, and visual assessments are all complementary, but
ultimately serve different purposes for the operator, and for EPA.
Annual reporting only occurs once per year during the permit term, and thus limits the
number of opportunities and delays the time the operator must assess and react to
potential problems at their facility. Additionally, while annual reports contain valuable
information on facility inspections, visual assessments, corrective actions, and Additional
Implementation Measures, the data is subjective, anecdotal, and qualitative. Visual
assessments are also an important component of a facility's stormwater program, which
requires the operator to observe water quality characteristics, such as color, clarity, solids,
and oil sheen and can indicate issues from pollutants that are not required to be monitored
for. Although quarterly visual assessments and quarterly benchmark monitoring occur at the
same frequency, visual assessments again result in narrative descriptions of stormwater
pollution and may not provide the precision necessary for the operator to address a
specific pollutant problem.
Page 57 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Compiling and evaluating information from either annual reports or visual assessments in a
systemic, meaningful way is more challenging than quantitative Penchmark data. Annual
reports tell an overall story of what happened with stormwater discharges at the facility for
a given year, and visual assessments give a general, oPserved indication of discharge
quality for a given quarter. Benchmark monitoring data, however, provides numerical
indicators of stormwater control effectiveness, what pollutants are Peing discharged, and
at what magnitude, which can Pe addressed in real-time and compared over time.
EPA has always tried to Palance the Purden to the regulated community with its oPIigation
under the CWA to ensure industrial stormwater discharges meet all provisions of CWA §301,
including applicaPle water quality standards (CWA §402(p) (3) (A)). To date, EPA has not
received adequate information or data suggesting a viaPle alternative approach to
Penchmark monitoring for characterizing industrial sites' stormwater discharges, quantifying
pollutant concentrations, and assessing stormwater control measure effectiveness. If such
alternative approaches exist, EPA is interested in learning aPout them and their potential to
accomplish these oPjectives. See request for comment 9.
Request for Comment 9: EPA requests comment on viaPle alternative approaches to Penchmark
monitoring for characterizing industrial sites' stormwater discharges, quantifying pollutant
concentrations, and assessing stormwater control measure effectiveness.
Benchmark monitoring requirements descriPed in Part 4.2.1 require operators to collect
stormwater samples for laPoratory chemical analyses. For clarity, EPA continues to
emphasize that the Penchmark thresholds in the EPA MSGP are not, and have never Peen,
effluent limits themselves. Therefore, an exceedance of the Penchmark threshold is not a
violation of the permit. At the same time, the permit contains a narrative effluent limitation
to protect water quality.
Part 4.2.1.1 Applicability of Benchmark Monitoring
Universal Benchmark Monitoring Applicable to All Sectors
The 2015 MSGP required Penchmark monitoring for around 55 percent of MSGP facilities;
the other 45 percent of facilities did not have any chemical-specific Penchmark
monitoring. More specifically, in the 2015 MSGP, 19 suPsectors were not suPject to any
Penchmark monitoring requirements (B2, C5, D2, E3, F5, II, J3, N2, PI, Rl, Tl, U3, VI, Wl, XI,
Y2, Zl, AB1, and AC1) while the remaining 34 suPsectors did have required Penchmark
monitoring.
EPA proposes to require all facilities to conduct Penchmark monitoring for three indicator
parameters of pH, total suspended solids (TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD),
regardless of sector/suPsector, called universal Penchmark monitoring, as recommended
Py the NRC study. This proposed requirement applies to all sectors/suPsectors, including
those facilities that previously did not have any chemical-specific monitoring requirements
and those that previously did not have these three specific Penchmark parameters under
the 2015 MSGP. The NRC study suggested that such universal Penchmark monitoring would
provide a Paseline and comparaPle understanding of industrial stormwater risk, Proader
water quality proPlems, and stormwater control effectiveness across all sectors. The study
states that "all three parameters are direct measures of water quality and are appropriate
choices for industry-wide sampling Pecause all three can Pe indicators of Proader water
quality proPlems and the presence of other pollutants." In addition, the study says these
parameters can indicate aPsence, neglect, or failure of a stormwater control measure,
which can lead to high concentrations of potential pollutants (NRC, 36). EPA previously
considered adding these three parameters as universal Penchmark monitoring
requirements to the 2005 MSGP (O'Donnell, 2005), and several states currently require some
Page 58 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
degree of universal monitoring in their industrial stormwater permits (California,
Connecticut, Minnesota, and Washington).
EPA proposes that all operators in all sectors must monitor for these three parameters in
addition to any existing or proposed Penchmark parameters that may Pe finalized in the
2020 MSGP, if applicaPle. Any sector/suPsector that had to monitor for pH, TSS, and/or COD
as a sector-specific Penchmark under the 2015 MSGP would now monitor for these
parameters in the 2020 MSGP as part of universal Penchmark monitoring, which EPA is
proposing to have a different monitoring frequency than existing sector-specific
Penchmark monitoring, discussed further Pelow.
EPA notes that the NRC Study did not opine on a specific or different corrective action
protocol for possiPle exceedances of universal Penchmark monitoring parameters. EPA
assumes the NRC Study committee was aware of the existing 2015 MSGP corrective action
protocol for Penchmark exceedances, as it is referenced throughout the Study. EPA also
assumes the NRC Study committee was aware of EPA's oPIigation to propose the
Additional Implementation Measure (AIM) protocol for Penchmark exceedances as an
enhancement to the 2015 MSGP corrective action protocol, as required Py the Settlement
Agreement. The NRC study states "the EPA is currently developing Additional
Implementation Measure (AIM) requirements in response to a legal settlement that would
provide actionaPle consequences for large or repeated Penchmark exceedances" (NRC,
21). Because the NRC Study recommended pH, TSS, and COD as Penchmark parameters,
and not some other type of monitoring, EPA assumes the same protocol for exceedances
should apply to these parameters just like any other Penchmark parameter.
Request for Comment 10: EPA requests comment the aPove proposed universal Penchmark
monitoring for pH, TSS, and COD applicaPle to all sectors. EPA requests comment on whether
universal Penchmark monitoring is appropriate and what parameters should Pe required.
Request for Comment 11: EPA requests comment on whether the permit should include an
inspection-only option for "low-risk" facilities in lieu of conducting Penchmark monitoring, as
recommended in the NRC study. EPA requests comment on ways to identify facilities that would Pe
eligiPle for an inspection-only option, what frequency would Pe appropriate for such an
inspection, what the inspection should entail, and what qualifications or certifications an inspector
should have.
Bqckground on Request for Comment 11 - The Inspection-Only Option
The NRC Study recommended that EPA provide low-risk facilities with an option to have a
certified inspector preform a comprehensive site inspection in lieu of Penchmark monitoring
requirements in the proposed 2020 MSGP. Providing an option for inspection in lieu of
monitoring can reduce the Purden on small, low-risk facilities and eliminate potentially
unreliaPle monitoring data, while improving stormwater management.
Identifying "low-risk" fqcilities:
Categorizing low-risk facilities that would Pe eligiPle for an inspection-only option is
somewhat challenging. The NRC Study suggested some example conditions for low
pollutant discharge risk (see NRC Study TaPle 3-3) but acknowledges that EPA would need
to further develop concrete and implementable criteria for determining low-risk facilities
(NRC, 57). One option EPA could consider is an inspection-only option based on "light
manufacturing" industrial facilities (e.g., food processing, printing and publishing, electronic
and other electrical equipment manufacturing, public warehousing and storage)
categorized in 40 CFR 122.26(b) (14) (xi). These facilities have a primary standard industrial
classification (SIC) code of one of following: 20XX, 21XX, 22XX, 23XX, 2434, 25XX, 265X, 267X,
27XX, 283X, 285X, 30XX, 31XX (except 311X), 323X, 34XX (except 3441), 35XX, 36XX, 37XX
Page 59 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
(except 373X), 38XX, 39XX, and 4221-25 (where "X" indicates other possiPle digits in the SIC
code, e.g., 20XX could Pe 2041). Light manufacturing industrial facilities are involved in the
manufacturing and distriPution of goods and services that typically take place indoors, as
opposed to the production and handling of raw materials and chemicals, and therefore
exhiPit a lower risk of contriPuting to water quality proPlems via stormwater discharges. The
1999 Phase II stormwater rule Prought "light industry" under the stormwater permitting
regulations, Put continued to acknowledge the low-risk characteristics of this category of
industries. See 64 FR 68722.
EPA requests comment on other criteria (Pesides the "light manufacturing" SIC codes
discussed aPove) to categorize "low-risk" facilities. One other possiPle criterion could Pe
that the facility had coverage under the 2015 MSGP and did not have any Penchmark
exceedances during that permit term; another possiPle criterion could Pe that the facility
had coverage under the 2015 MSGP and did have a Penchmark exceedance Put
amended their SWPPP and did not have repeat exceedances. The NRC Study did suggest
that facility site size might Pe a criterion for categorizing low-risk, Put acknowledges that size
may not fully represent the risk profile. Because size does not capture type or intensity of
activity, EPA is concerned this is not a viaPle criterion for categorizing low-risk facilities. EPA
requests comment on these and any other options the Agency should consider for
determining low-risk facilities eligiPle for an inspection-only option.
Frequency of Inspections:
EPA is interested in the appropriate inspection frequency for an inspection-only option. One
approach could Pe to require eligiPle facilities to undergo two comprehensive site
inspections conducted Py a certified, professional inspector during their permit coverage
instead of conducting Penchmark monitoring. The first professional site inspection could Pe
conducted within the first year of permit coverage, and the second inspection could occur
in the third year of permit coverage. EPA initially considered two inspections per permit
term in the cost analysis, Put requests comment the appropriateness of other frequencies
for this option.
Contents of the Inspection:
EPA requests comment on what the professional inspection should entail. The inspection
could include the following, or a comPination thereof:
• Review the permit and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): include in the
report a detailed description and professional opinion of whether and/or to what
degree the SWPPP meets the requirements set forth in the permit:
• Review all permit-related records, including self-inspection reports: include in the report
a detailed description and professional opinion of whether and/or to what degree the
facility is complying with the permit and the SWPPP:
• Walk the facility site and verify that the SWPPP is accurate and that the SCMs are in
place and functioning: include in the report a detailed description and professional
opinion of whether and/or to what degree the SWPPP is accurate and that the SCMs
are in place and functioning: and
• Identify in the report additional control measures or other actions the facility needs to
take and the timeframe Py which those measures or actions should Pe completed to
effectively manage stormwater pollution.
• Consideration of the degree of exposure of industrial activities and materials at a
facility.
Page 60 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
EPA also requests comment on what follow up the Agency should require with the
inspection report. EPA could consider requiring the operator to suPmit the original,
unmodified inspection report from the professional inspector to EPA electronically within 30
days of the inspection. If after reviewing the inspection report, EPA determines that
conditions at the facility indicate suPstantial concerns and/or recurrent proPlems that have
remained unaddressed, or there has Peen a lapse in inspections, EPA could consider
requiring the operator to conduct Penchmark monitoring.
Professional Inspector Credentials:
EPA requests comment on certifications or qualifications the Agency should consider for a
third-party professional inspector for this inspection-only option. The NRC Study
recommended that the certified inspector Pe an employee of a municipal separate storm
sewer system (MS4), a private third-party company, or a parent corporation, as long as the
inspector is not directly involved in the day-to-day operation or oversight of the facility
Peing inspected (NRC, 55). Because the inspection-only option would Pe availaPle to
eligiPle facilities instead of conducting Penchmark monitoring, EPA wants to ensure the
inspector has the appropriate credentials to evaluate the effectiveness of the facility's
stormwater control measures, does not have any conflicts of interest, and will conduct an
un-Piased, fair inspection.
EPA currently does not have its own certification program for industrial stormwater
inspections, nor can the Agency officially endorse private third-party certification programs.
The 2015 MSGP does require a "qualified personnel" to prepare the SWPPP and conduct
facility self-inspections. In this context, a "qualified personnel" is defined as "qualified
personnel are those who are knowledgeaPle in the principles and practices of industrial
stormwater controls and pollution prevention, and who possess the education and aPility to
assess conditions at the industrial facility that could impact stormwater quality, and the
education and aPility to assess the effectiveness of stormwater controls selected and
installed to meet the requirements of the permit." However, EPA requests comment on
whether the credentials of the "qualified personnel" as currently defined are sufficient for
the professional, third-party inspection envisioned for the inspection-only option. EPA
request comment on how the Agency could adapt the "qualified personnel" qualifications
or whether the inspection credentials for the inspection-only option should Pe more
rigorous, given that the facility would Pe exempt from otherwise required Penchmark
monitoring.
EPA initially evaluated the professional inspection Peing conducted Py a Professional
Engineer (PE) in the cost analysis. If EPA had more information on other third-party
professional certifications in industrial stormwater inspections, the Agency may include this
option in the final permit.
Cost of the Inspection-Only Option:
EPA considered the inspection-only option in the cost analysis conducted for this proposed
permit using the criteria discussed aPove (i.e., "light manufacturing" facilities; two
inspections per permit term; the inspections conducted Py a PE). Based on the results of this
analysis, EPA made a preliminary conclusion that the costs show the inspection-only option
may not Pe a viaPle alternative and that Penchmark monitoring may Pe more cost
effective for operators. This is due to the relatively high laPor rates of a professional
inspection from a PE as compared to the sampling costs of Penchmarking monitoring. EPA
notes this is just one approach and as discussed aPove, requests comment on other criteria
the Agency should evaluate in order to make the inspection-only option an effective
alternative for low-risk facilities. For a full discussion and detailed analysis of the costs, see
Page 61 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Section E.5 of the Cost Impact Analysis for the Proposed 2020 Multi-Sector General Permit
(MSGP) in the docket.
Proposed Monitoring Requirements for Sectors I. P. and R (see also Part 8)
The NRC study recommended that EPA require Penchmark monitoring for Sectors I, P, and
R. None of these sectors currently have Penchmark monitoring in the 2015 MSGP. EPA
proposes to require specific Penchmark monitoring for these three sectors. The proposed
Penchmark values are Pased on existing Penchmark thresholds for the proposed
parameters.
Facilities in Sector I (Oil and Gas Extraction) use many types of chemicals that could
Pecome sources of pollutants in stormwater discharges. These include diesel fuel, oil,
solvents, drilling fluid, acids, and various chemical additives. The NRC study listed ammonia,
lead, nickel, nitrate, zinc, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarPons (PAHs) as pollutants
associated with oil and gas extraction facilities. EPA proposes that facilities in Sector I have
Penchmark monitoring for ammonia, nickel, total recoveraPle lead, nitrate-nitrogen, total
recoveraPle zinc, and hardness. EPA does not currently have recommended aquatic life
criteria for PAHs nor a chemical-specific Penchmark threshold for any industrial sector.
However, the NRC study suggested that COD could Pe used as a surrogate for PAHs and
EPA recognizes that it could Pe a surrogate for other organic pollutants as well. Given that
EPA proposes that all sectors, including I, have required universal Penchmark monitoring for
pH, TSS, and COD, EPA is not proposing to add a sector-specific Penchmark for COD.
Facilities in Sector P (Land Transportation and Warehousing) typically have areas for vehicle
and equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance, fueling, material storage, and
locomotive sanding areas. They can use on-site chemicals like solvents, diesel fuel, gasoline,
hydraulic fluids, antifreeze, and transmission fluids. Leaks and spills from petroleum-Pased
products and chemicals can also contain PAHs. EPA proposes that facilities in Sector P
have Penchmark monitoring for lead, mercury, and hardness.
Facilities in Sector R (Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yards) perform activities like fluid
changes, mechanical repairs, engine maintenance and repair, parts cleaning, refinishing,
paint removal, painting, fueling, metal working, welding, cutting, and grinding. These sorts
of activities can include using solvents, oils, fuel, antifreeze, acid and alkaline wastes,
aPrasives, and paints and can create dust. EPA proposes that facilities in Sector R have
Penchmark monitoring for total recoveraPle chromium, total recoveraPle copper, total
recoveraPle lead, total recoveraPle nickel, total recoveraPle zinc, and hardness.
Request for Comment 12: EPA requests comment on whether chemical-specific Penchmark
monitoring proposed in Part 8 for Sectors I, R, and P is appropriate for these sectors. EPA requests
comment on whether the proposed monitoring parameters are appropriate for these sectors and
any data or information related to the sources and activities related to these sectors.
Pqrt 4.2.1.2 Benchmqrk Monitoring Schedule
Schedule for Universol Benchmarks Applicable to All Sectors (pH, TSS, and COD)
For universal Penchmark monitoring parameters of pH, TSS, and COD, EPA proposes that
operators would Pe required to conduct quarterly Penchmark monitoring, as identified in
Part 4.1.7, for each year of permit coverage commencing no earlier than [date 90 days
after permit effective date]. For any data exceeding the Penchmark threshold for these
three parameters that triggered any event as specified in Parts 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.1, and 5.2.3.1,
EPA proposes that operators would Pe required to comply with Part 5.2 (Additional
Implementation Measures).
Page 62 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
EPA proposes that facilities monitor and report for these three parameters on a quarterly
Pasis for the entire permit term, regardless of any Penchmark threshold exceedances, to
ensure facilities have current indicators of the effectiveness of their stormwater control
measures throughout the permit term. For facilities that had pH, TSS, and/or COD as a
Penchmark in the 2015 MSGP, those parameter(s) would follow the newly proposed
quarterly monitoring schedule for the entire permit term. The NRC study suggests that
quarterly stormwater event samples collected over only the first year of the permit term are
inadequate to characterize industrial stormwater discharges or descriPe industrial
stormwater control measure performance over the permit term. The study states that
"extended sampling over the course of the permit would provide greater assurance of
continued effective stormwater management and help identify adverse effects from
modifications in facility operation and personnel overtime" (NRC, 83).
There are well-estaPlished standardized analytical procedures for all three parameters of
pH, TSS, and COD and analytical determinations are expected to Pe relatively inexpensive.
The NRC study acknowledges that the additional cost Purden for these three parameters is
expected to Pe relatively small given that all facilities are already required to collect
quarterly stormwater samples for visual monitoring.
Because some operators choose to sample more than the required numPer of times, EPA
has included specific proposed language in the permit that the extra samples may Pe used
to calculate their Penchmark average. Any additional sampling does not reduce the
requirement that the monitoring Pe completed over a minimum of four calendar quarters.
Therefore, additional samples collected in one quarter for this purpose cannot replace
sampling required in other quarters. (Note: requirement for four calendar quarters of
monitoring is not applicaPle to airports given that the monitoring requirements for that
sector are related to winter application of deicing chemicals.)
Request for Comment 13: EPA requests comment on whether to permit should require facilities to
monitor and report for the proposed universal Penchmark monitoring parameters (pH, TSS, and
COD) on a quarterly Pasis for the entire permit term, regardless of any Penchmark threshold
exceedances, to ensure facilities have current indicators of the effectiveness of their stormwater
control measures throughout the permit term.
Schedule for Sector-Specific Benchmarks
For all sector-specific Penchmark monitoring parameters, EPA proposes that the monitoring
schedule remains unchanged from the 2015 MSGP, except for pH, TSS, and COD which
have a newly proposed schedule, discussed aPove. For all sector-specific Penchmark
monitoring parameters, operators would Pe required to conduct quarterly Penchmark
monitoring, as identified in Part 4.1.7, for the first four full quarters of permit coverage
commencing no earlier than [date 90 days after permit effective date]. If the four-quarter
annual average for any parameter does not exceed the Penchmark threshold, the
operator has fulfilled the sector-specific Penchmark monitoring requirements for that
parameter for the permit term and can discontinue Penchmark monitoring for that
parameter. The facility must comply with Part 5 (Additional Implementation Measures) and
continue quarterly Penchmark monitoring for any parameter with data exceeding the
Penchmark threshold as specified in Parts 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.1, and 5.2.3.1. Exceptions for data
exceeding Penchmarks, including from natural Packground pollutant sources and run-on,
were moved to Part 5.2.5 AIM Exceptions.
Derivation of the Benchmark Levels
The 2020 MSGP retains some of the same Penchmark monitoring thresholds as the final 2015
MSGP but proposes to modify and add some benchmark thresholds based on the NRC
study recommendations. The process that EPA followed in selecting the benchmark
Page 63 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
parameter thresholds for the permit was as follows: Step 1: Use EPA's final CWA section
304(a) recommended acute criterion value; Step 2: If no EPA acute criterion exists, use the
chronic EPA criterion; Step 3: If neither acute nor chronic criteria exist, use data from
discharge studies or technology-Pased standards to estaPlish a Penchmark. In general, the
freshwater acute criteria are less restrictive than chronic water quality criteria. Because of
the intermittent nature of wet weather (i.e., stormwater) discharges and the high and
variaPle amPient flows that generally result from precipitation events, EPA views acute
criteria as generally more appropriate than chronic criteria in this context. Since
Penchmarks are usually set equal to recommended amPient water quality criteria for the
receiving waters, with no allowance for dilution during storm events, they are conservative
values. Exceedance of a Penchmark threshold does not necessarily indicate that a
discharge is not meeting an applicaPle water quality standard, Put does require the facility
to evaluate the effectiveness of its control measures, with follow-up Additional
implementation Measures (AIM) response where required per Part 5.2. For a full discussion of
EPA's approach for the derivation of the Penchmarks, see the Fact Sheet for the 1995
MSGP (60 Fed. Reg. 50825, SeptemPer29, 1995),2000 MSGP (65 Fed. Reg. 64746), and the
2008 MSGP (73 Fed. Reg. 56572).
The MSGP defines saline or salt waters for the purposes of Penchmark monitoring as those
waters with salinity equal to or in exceedance of 10 parts per thousand 95 percent or more
of the time, unless otherwise defined as a coastal or marine water Py the applicaPle state
or triPal surface water quality standards. This definition is consistent with 40 CFR 131.36.
These Penchmarks represent the availaPle acute amPient water quality criteria for priority
toxic and non-priority pollutants in saltwater.
The NRC study recommended that EPA update information related to aluminum, selenium,
arsenic, cadmium, magnesium, iron, copper, and PAHs. EPA proposes some permit
changes related to these recommendations.
Aluminum
Just like the 2015 MSGP, EPA proposes that facilities in suPsectors C2, El, Fl, F2, Ml, Nl, Ql,
and AA1 perform Penchmark monitoring for aluminum. The NRC study recommended that
EPA update the aluminum Penchmark value in the 2020 MSGP but the information that
NRC relied upon is based on criteria still in draft form and not yet issued. This draft 2017
aquatic life criteria for aluminum uses a multiple linear regression method that considers
total hardness, pH, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). The 2015 MSGP freshwater
aluminum benchmark is 0.75 mg/L (same as 750 ug/L); the 2017 draft update recommends
increasing the acute criteria to 1,400 |jg/L based on a pH value of 7, hardness value of 100
mg/L, and DOC value of 1 mg/L. Given the criteria is still in draft form, EPA proposes to use
the same benchmark value for aluminum as listed in the 2015 MSGP, but may update it if
the criteria is issued before EPA finalizes the 2020 MSGP.
Selenium
As in the 2015 MSGP, facilities in subsectors G2 and K1 are required to monitor for selenium
in the 2020 MSGP. The NRC study also recommended that EPA allow facilities that
repeatedly exceed the benchmark values for selenium to use the EPA-developed aquatic
life criteria to evaluate water quality risk on a site-specific basis and discontinue
comparisons to national benchmarks. In 2016, EPA updated ambient aquatic life criteria
recommendations for selenium that included new chronic freshwater criteria of 1.5 ug/L for
still waters and 3.1 |jg/L for flowing waters (EPA, 2016a). EPA did not develop concentration-
based acute criteria. EPA based these updated selenium criteria on the bioaccumulation
of selenium and reproductive effects on fish species and translated the chronic criteria for
short term or intermittent exposure instead of developing a specific acute criterion.
Page 64 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Allowing permittees who have repeatedly exceeded Penohmarks to perform facility-
specific analyses could provide additional information on any potential adverse effects
that could occur Pased on specific facility conditions. However, the translation of the
chronic criteria would require gathering additional data, including Packground Pase-flow
concentration of selenium in the receiving water and the length of exposure. At this time,
given the extra data collection associated with implementing the new criteria, EPA is not
proposing to use the latest aquatic life criteria.
Request for Comment 14: In 2016, EPA updated recommended amPient aquatic life criteria for
selenium that changed the chronic freshwater criteria from 3.1 |jg/L to 1.5 |jg/L for still or flowing
waters. The 2016 recommended criteria accounts for the Pioaccumulation properties of selenium
and reproductive effects on fish species. It also includes a translation of the chronic criteria for short
term or intermittent exposure in lieu of acute criteria. The translation of the chronic criteria to an
appropriate Penchmark must Pe calculated Pased on site-specific considerations (i.e.,
Packground Pase-flow concentrations of selenium and length of exposure) in the receiving
waterPody. EPA requests comments on whether the 2020 MSGP should allow operators that
repeatedly exceed the selenium Penchmark values to use the recommended 2016 aquatic life
criteria to evaluate water quality risk on a site-specific Pasis and discontinue comparisons to
national Penchmarks.
Arsenic
EPA proposes that suPsectors A2, G2, and K1 perform Penchmark monitoring for arsenic.
The Penchmark value in the 2015 MSGP is 0.15 mg/L (=150 |jg/L) for freshwater and 0.069
mg/L (=69 |jg/L) for saltwater. These values were selected Pased on concerns aPout near-
coastal freshwater discharges flowing quickly into sensitive saline waters, which have a
saltwater acute aquatic criteria value of 0.069 mg/L. The NRC recommended that EPA
Pase the value on the acute aquatic life criterion of 340 ug/L unless EPA can justify why
arsenic in stormwater from freshwater in near-coastal setting is of concern or until it
develops a criterion Pased on intermittent exposure. EPA proposes to continue using the
chronic freshwater criteria for setting the arsenic Penchmark given that it prefers not to
weaken a discharge requirement unless good scientific evidence exists that a pollutant is
less toxic than previously Pelieved. This is not the case with arsenic. Furthermore, arsenic
toxicity increases suPstantially in saline waters. Since many permitted facilities are located in
coastal states, and their discharge may reach saline waters quickly, EPA proposes to use
the chronic criteria for arsenic to protect these estuarine environments.
Request for Comment 15: EPA requests comment or any information related to updating the
arsenic freshwater Penchmark threshold Pased on the recommended acute criterion of 340 ug/L
rather than the chronic criterion of 150 ug/L and specifically any concerns related to near-coastal
freshwater discharges flowing into sensitive saline waters.
Cqdmium
The 2015 MSGP required suPsectors G2 and K1 to perform Penchmark monitoring for
cadmium. EPA Pased the 2015 MSGP Penchmark threshold on the 2001 acute aquatic life
criterion that was hardness-dependent for freshwater and 0.04 mg/L for saltwater. Since
then, EPA updated this criterion in 2016 to 1.8 ug/L to represent the Pest science availaPle
Py accounting for new laPoratory tests, including the effects of total hardness on cadmium
toxicity and included 75 new species and 40 new genera in the testing process. EPA
proposes to update this Penchmark value to match the new criterion.
Request for Comment 16: EPA requests comment on updating the Penchmark value for cadmium
to Pe Pased on the updated recommended 2016 acute chronic life criteria.
Mqqnesium
Page 65 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
The 2015 MSGP required subsector K1 to monitor for magnesium and included a
benchmark value of 0.064 mg/L. The NRC study recommended that EPA remove the
magnesium benchmark from the 2020 MSGP since it is a "natural component of surface
and groundwater and does not appear to be toxic to a majority of aquatic organisms at
concentrations likely to be encountered in most waters" (NAS, 41). Significant evidence
does not exist to indicate adverse impacts of aquatic organism and EPA does not provide
an aquatic life criterion for magnesium. Magnesium concentrations present in stormwater
are not anticipated to be toxic to most aquatic organisms6. EPA could not find any
information to support continuing to require this benchmark parameter and therefore
proposes to remove magnesium as a benchmark parameter in the 2020 MSGP.
Request for Comment 17: EPA requests comment or any information related to the acute effects of
magnesium on aquatic organisms that would warrant retaining a magnesium benchmark in the
2020 MSGP.
Iron
In the 2015 MSGP, EPA required subsectors CI, C2, E2, F2, G2, HI, L2, Ml, Nl, Ol, Ql, and
AA1 to monitor for iron. The NRC study found few studies on the acute effects of iron on
aquatic organisms and recommended that EPA no longer require an iron benchmark. EPA
proposes to remove this benchmark.
Request for Comment 18: EPA requests comment or any information related to the acute effects of
iron on aquatic organisms that would warrant retaining an iron benchmark in the 2020 MSGP.
Copper
The 2015 MSGP required subsectors A2, F2, F3, F4, G2, and Nl to monitor for copper. The
NRC recognized EPA's previous decision to not update the copper benchmark value
because the 2007 aquatic ambient water quality criterion was based on the Biotic Ligand
Model (BLM) and would place extra sampling burden on facilities because the facility
would need to do additional sampling to acquire the site-specific water quality data
needed by the BLM, such as hardness, pH, and dissolved organic carbon. The NRC study
recommended that EPA allow facilities that repeatedly exceed the benchmark threshold
to use the latest aquatic life criteria to evaluate water quality risk on a site-specific basis
and discontinue comparisons to national benchmarks.
Request for Comment 19: EPA requests comments on whether the benchmark should change in
the 2020 MSGP to allow facilities that repeatedly exceed the copper benchmark to use the latest
recommended aquatic life criteria to evaluate water quality risk on a site-specific basis. Site-
specific analysis would discontinue comparison to national benchmarks and use the latest
recommended criteria equations for calculating toxicity criteria based on short-term exposure
using additional water chemistry and/or flow data.
Polvcvclic Aromatic Hvdrocqrbons fPAHsl
Applicqble
MSGP Sub-
Sector
Activity Represented
Contributing
SIC Codes1
PAH
Pollutqnt
Load
(kg/yeqr)
C5
Industrial Organic Chemicals; Petroleum Refining
2865, 2869,
2911
131,0732
6 van Dam, R. A., A. C. Hogan, C. D. McCullough, M. A. Houston, C. L. Humphrey, and A. J. Harford. 2010.
Aquatic toxicity of magnesium sulfate, and the influence of calcium, in very low ionic concentration water.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(2):410 - 421.
Page 66 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Applicable
MSGP Sub-
Sector
Activity Represented
Contributing
SIC Codes1
PAH
Pollutant
Load
(kg/year)
Q1
Water Transportation Facilities
4491,4493
6,3513
C4
Plastics Materials and Synthetic Resins, Synthetic
Rubber, Cellulosic and Other Manmade Fibers
Except Glass
2821,2822
3,2704
F1
Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing
Mills
3312, 3313,
3317
628s
C2
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
2812,2813,
2819
4916
C3
Soaps, Detergents, and Cleaning Preparations;
Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations
2843
287
Y2
Miscellaneous Plastic Products; Musical Instruments;
Dolls, Toys, Games, and Sporting and Athletic
Goods; Pens, Pencils, and Other Artists' Materials;
Costume Jewelry, Costume Novelties, Buttons, and
Miscellaneous Notions, Except Precious Metal;
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
3081
282
PI
Railroad Transportation; Local and Highway
Passenger Transportation; Moto Freight
Transportation and Warehousing; United States
Postal Service; Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
4011,4013,
4213, 4226,
4231,5171
2537
A2
Wood Preserving
2491
251
A1
General Sawmills and Planing Mills
2421
206
AC1
Computer and Office Equipment; Measuring,
Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic
and Optical Goods, Watches, and Clocks; Electronic
and Electrical Equipment and Components, Except
Computer Equipment
3624
164
D2
Miscellaneous Products of Petroleum and Coal
2992,2999
90
CI
Agricultural Chemicals
2873
46
11
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas; Natural Gas
Liquids; Oil and Gas Field Services
133, 1321,
1389
ll8
Ml
Automobile Salvage Yards
5012
6.9
SI
Air Transportation Facilities
4581
4.9
F5
Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals;
Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous
Metals; Miscellaneous Primary Metal Products
3334, 3399
3.79
AB1
Industrial and Commercial Machinery, Except
Computer and Office Equipment; Transportation
Equipment Except Ship and Boat Building and
Repairing
3523, 3537,
3713, 3714,
3721,3724,
3743
1.4'°
Several PAHs have been shown to be extremely toxic to and bioaccumulate in fish and
aquatic invertebrates, and are known or probable human carcinogens. See Part 1.1.8 of
this Fact Sheet for a detailed discussion of PAH toxicity. Although EPA does not have
national recommended aquatic life criteria for individual or total PAHs, some states have
developed criteria for certain individual PAHs (for example, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, and
Arizona). In addition, EPA does not have any PAH benchmark monitoring requirements for
Page 67 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
any sector under the MSGP. The NRC study recommended that EPA collect data or require
monitoring related to PAHs in the MSGP to determine an adequate surrogate or if
additional PAH monitoring is warranted (NRC, 33).
Some facilities covered under the MSGP use, handle, or generate chemicals and products
in the course of their industrial activity that could release PAHs into the environment that will
Pe exposed to stormwater. For example, facilities may pave loading dock areas and other
surfaces used for industrial activities with coal-tar sealcoat that contains PAHs. Some
facilities that process or use timPer products may use creosote that contains PAHs to
preserve or protect wood. Many facilities may use or handle petroleum or have vehicles or
equipment that could spill or leak oils and grease that contain PAHs.
EPA conducted an industry analysis that looked at sectors/suPsectors included in the 2015
MSGP that may have petroleum hydrocarPons at their facilities that could Pe exposed to
stormwater. The analysis looked at industrial process wastewater discharges as a proxy to
identify industries that may use, handle, or generate PAHs. EPA identified the following
suPsectors and related activities that have total PAH loadings of greater than 1 kg/year:
1. ApplicaPle SIC codes with reported total PAH loadings used in calculating the total
annual pollutant load.
2. Petroleum refining (SIC code 2911); and industrial organic chemicals, not elsewhere
classified (SIC code 2869) accounts for most of the loading identified in this sector
(130,571 kg/year and 496 kg/year, respectively).
3. Marinas (SIC code 4491) account for most of the loading identified in this sector (6,379
kg/year).
4. Plastics materials, synthetic resins, and nonvulcanizaPle elastomers (SIC code 2821)
accounts for most of the loading identified in this sector (3,265 kg/year).
5. Steel works, Plast furnaces (including coke ovens), and rolling mills (SIC code 3312); and
electrometallurgical products, except steel (SIC code 3313) account for most of the
loading identified in this sector (589 kg/year and 39 kg/year, respectively).
6. Industrial inorganic chemicals, not elsewhere classified (SIC code 2819); and alkalies
and chlorine (SIC code 2812) account for most of the loading identified in this sector
(440 kg/year and 51 kg/year, respectively).
7. Petroleum Pulk stations and terminals (SIC code 5171); railroads, line-haul operating (SIC
code 4011); and special warehousing and storage, not elsewhere classified (SIC code
4226) account for most of the loading identified in this sector (146 kg/year, 85 kg/year,
and 22 kg/year, respectively).
8. Oil and gas field services, not elsewhere classified (SIC code 1389); and crude
petroleum and natural gas (SIC code 1311) account for most of the loading identified in
this sector (9 kg/year and 2 kg/year, respectively).
9. Primary production of aluminum (SIC code 3334) accounts for most of the loading
identified in this sector (3 kg/year).
10. Aircraft engines and engine parts (SIC code 3724) account for most of the loading
identified in this sector (0.9 kg/year).
Implementing standard pollution prevention/source control methods and stormwater
control measures as required Py other parts of the permit could reduce PAHs in stormwater,
Put facilities may not design those controls to specifically address PAHs and without some
Page 68 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
type of PAH-related monitoring, it may Pe difficult to determine the effectiveness of those
measures on minimizing PAHs in stormwater.
Therefore, EPA could consider requiring monitoring for PAHs or surrogates if information
and/or preliminary monitoring shared with EPA indicates it is warranted. However, EPA does
not have recommended aquatic life criteria for either individual or total PAHs at this time.
The 1995 and 2000 MSGPs included a Penchmark for pyrene of 0.01 mg/L Pased on the
laPoratory derived minimum level (ML). As an alternative, EPA could consider requiring
monitoring for total petroleum hydrocarPons (TPH), a variety of chemicals that come from
crude oil. These chemicals can include hexane, jet fuels, mineral oils, Penzene, toluene,
xylenes, naphthalene, fluorene, other petroleum products, and gasoline components.
Another alternative is to require monitoring for chemical oxygen demand (COD) as a
surrogate for PAHs. The NRC study stated that COD could Pe a possiPle surrogate, Put that
more data could help to correlate PAH concentrations to COD. However, NRC noted that
COD may not Pe specific or sensitive enough to detect moderate/low concentrations of
PAHs. EPA proposes that all facilities conduct universal Penchmark monitoring for pH, TSS,
and COD. These parameters can Pe used as indicators of stormwater pollution and
stormwater control effectiveness. See discussion aPove in this Part.
EPA evaluated options for developing a Penchmark threshold for PAHs, TPH, or COD as a
surrogate for PAHs forsuPsectors that have total PAH loadings of greater than 1 kg/year
(Al, A2, CI, C2, C3, C4, C5, D2, Fl, F5, II, Ml, PI, Ql, SI, Y2, AB1, and AC1) specified in the
taPle aPove. After conducting the cost analysis for this proposed permit for the three
options, EPA concluded that COD is the most cost-effective option as a surrogate, and
since it is already Peing proposed under the new universal Penchmark monitoring, no
additional monitoring for PAHs is Peing proposed at this time. EPA requests comment on
information and data related to specific sectors with petroleum hydrocarPon exposure that
can release PAHs, any concentrations of individual PAHs and/or total PAHs at industrial sites,
and the correlation of PAHs and COD. EPA may consider additional monitoring for PAHs in
the final permit if it receives sufficient information to develop an appropriate Penchmark
threshold. For a full discussion and detailed analysis of the options and the costs, see
Section E.3 of the Cost Impact Analysis for the Proposed 2020 Multi-Sector General Permit
(MSGP) in the docket.
Request for Comment 20: EPA requests comment on information and data related to pollutant
sources under all industrial sectors with petroleum hydrocarPon exposure that can release
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarPons (PAHs) via stormwater discharges, any concentrations of
individual PAHs and/or total PAHs at industrial sites, the correlation of PAHs and COD, and
appropriate pollution prevention/source control methods and stormwater control measures that
could Pe used to address PAHs.
The following taPle presents the permit's freshwater and saltwater Penchmark values, and
the source of those values. In most cases, EPA has not revised Penchmarks since they were
first puPlished in the 1995 MSGP. However, EPA updated the Penchmark thresholds to
match the units that appear in the source documents as indicated. In these cases, the
Penchmark thresholds are not identified as Peing different than the final 2015 MSGP.
MSGP Benchmark Values and Sources
Pollutant
2015 MSGP
Benchmark
2015 MSGP
Source (see
footnotes)
Different in
2020 MSGP?
2020 MSGP
Source (see
footnotes)
2020
MSGP
Benchmark
Total Recoverable
Aluminum (T)a
0.75 mg/L
1
No
1
750 |jg/Lb
Page 69 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
MSGP Benchmark Values and Sources
Pollutant
2015 MSGP
Benchmark
2015 MSGP
Source (see
footnotes)
Different in
2020 MSGP?
2020 MSGP
Source (see
footnotes)
2020
MSGP
Benchmark
Total Recoverable Beryllium
0.13 mg/L
2
No
2
130 |jg/Lb
Total Recoverable Iron
1.0 mg/L
3
Yes
16
Removed
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (5-
dav)
30 mg/L
4
No
4
30 mg/L
PH
6.0 - 9.0 s.u.
4
No
4
6.0 - 9.0 s.u.
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
120 mg/L
5
No
5
120 mg/L
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/L
6
No
6
2.0 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
100 mg/L
7
No
7
100 mg/L
Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen
0.68 mg/L
7
No
7
0.68 mg/L
Total Recoverable
Magnesium
0.064 mg/L
8
Yes
16
Removed
Turbidity
50 NTU
9
No
9
50 NTU
Total Recoverable
Antimony
0.64 mg/L
12
No
1
640 |jg/Lb
Ammonia
2.14 mg/L
13
No
1
2.14 mg/L
Total
Recoverable
Cadmium
Freshwater
C
0.0021 mg/L
1
No, Criteria
Updatedd
15
1.8 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.04 mg/L
14
No, Criteria
Updatedd
15
33 |jg/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Copper
Freshwater
C
0.014 mg/L
1
No
1
14 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.0048 mg/L
14
No
14
48 |jg/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Cyanide
Freshwater
0.022 mg/L
1
No
1
22 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.001 mg/L
14
No
14
1 M9/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Mercury
Freshwater
0.0014 mg/L
1
No
1
l .4 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.0018 mg/L
14
No
14
l .8 |jg/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Nickel
Freshwater
C
0.47 mg/L
1
No
1
47 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.074 mg/L
14
No
14
74 |jg/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Freshwater
0.005 mg/L
3
No
3
5 M9/Lb
Page 70 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
MSGP Benchmark Values and Sources
Pollutant
2015 MSGP
Benchmark
2015 MSGP
Source (see
footnotes)
Different in
2020 MSGP?
2020 MSGP
Source (see
footnotes)
2020
MSGP
Benchmark
Seleniume
Saltwater
0.29 mg/L
14
No
14
290 |jg/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Silver
Freshwater
C
0.0038 mg/L
1
No
1
3.8 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.0019 mg/L
14
No
14
1.9 |jg/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Zinc
Freshwater
C
0.12 mg/L
1
No
1
120 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.09 mg/L
14
No
14
90 |jg/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Arsenic
Freshwater
0.15 mg/L
3
No
3
150 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.069 mg/L
14
No
14
69 |jg/Lb
Total
Recoverable
Lead
Freshwater
C
0.082 mg/L
3
No
3
8.2 |jg/Lb
Saltwater
0.21 mg/L
14
No
1
210 |jg/Lb
Chromium (III)
Freshwater
Not included
—
Yes
17
570 |jg/L
Chromium (VI)
Freshwater
Not Included
-
Yes
17
16 |jg/L
Saltwater
Not Included
-
Yes
14
1,100 |jg/L
a New criteria for these parameters are currently under development. If criteria are finalized prior to
the finalization of the 2020 MSGP EPA may revise these values based on the new criteria.
b Values have been updated to match original units found in source documents.
c These pollutants are dependent on water hardness where discharged into freshwaters. The freshwater
benchmark value listed is based on a hardness of 100 mg/L. When a facility analyzes receiving water
samples for hardness, the permittee must use the hardness ranges provided in Table 1 in Appendix J of the
2015 MSGP and in the appropriate tables in Part 8 of the 2015 MSGP to determine applicable benchmark
values for that facility. Benchmark values for discharges of these pollutants into saline waters are not
dependent on receiving water hardness and do not need to beadjusted.
d The values for these pollutants are based on water quality criteria, but EPA updated to reflect 2016
"National Recommended Water Quality Criteria."
e New criteria developed in 2016, but values are currently based on previous criteria.
Sources:
1. "National Recommended Water Quality Criteria." Acute Aquatic Life Freshwater (EPA-822-F-04-010
2006-CMC)
2. "EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Beryllium." LOEL Acute Freshwater
(EPA-440-5-80-024 October 1980)
3. "National Recommended Water Quality Criteria." Chronic Aquatic Life Freshwater (EPA-822-F-04-
010 2006-CCC)
4. Secondary Treatment Regulations (40 CFR 133)
5. Factor of 4 times BOD5 (5-day biochemical oxygen demand) concentration - North Carolina
Benchmark
6. North Carolina stormwater Benchmark derived from NC Water QualityStandards
7. National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) median concentration
8. Minimum Level (ML) based upon highest Method Detection Limit (MDL) times a factor of 3.18
Page 71 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
9. Combination of simplified variations on Stormwater Effects Handbook, Burton and Pitt, 2001 and
water quality standards in Idaho, in conjunction with review of DMRdata
10. "National Ambient Water Quality Criteria." Acute Aquatic Life Freshwater. This is an earlier version of
the criteria document that has subsequently been updated. (See source #1)
11. "National Ambient Water Quality Criteria." Chronic Aquatic Life Freshwater. This is an earlier version of
the criteria document that has subsequently been updated. (See source #3)
12. "National Ambient Water Quality Criteria. "Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only
(EPA-822-F-01-0102006)
13. "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses." USEPA Office of Water (PB85-227049 January 1985)
14. "National Recommended Water Quality Criteria." Acute Aquatic Life Saltwater (CMC) available
at: http://water.epa.aov/scitech/swauidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm#altable
15. "Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria: Cadmium, 2016" (EPA 820-R-l 6-002)
16. Improving the EPA Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Stormwater Discharges, 2019.
Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25355/improving-the-epa-multi-sector-general-
permit-for-industrial-stormwater-discharges
17. "National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Table." Available at:
https://www.epa.aov/wac/national-recommended-water-aualitv-criteria-aauatic-life-criteria-table
Part 4.2.1.3 Exception for Inactive and Unstaffed Sites
This Part allows for an exception from benchmark monitoring for facilities that are both
inactive and unstaffed, when such facilities no longer have industrial activities or materials
exposed to stormwater. EPA is retaining this exception because these facilities will not be
contributing pollutants in stormwater discharges. These facilities could alternatively submit a
No Exposure Certification terminating permit coverage. However, EPA realizes that some
facilities plan to recommence industrial activity in the future and therefore may wish to
keep active permit coverage. To qualify for this exception, a facility must maintain a signed
certification with their SWPPP documentation (Part 6.5 of the permit) that indicates that the
site is inactive and unstaffed, and that there are no industrial activities or materials exposed
to stormwater. Facilities are not required to obtain advance approval for this exception. The
2020 MSGP retains the allowance for inactive and unstaffed sites in the mining industry (i.e.,
Sectors G, H, and J) to qualify for this exception where some industrial activities or materials
are still exposed to stormwater. This provision is included for mining sites because of the
large number of extremely remote sites in these sectors, and the impracticability/infeasibility
of reaching these sites during qualifying storm events. However, these sites must still be
identified in a SWPPP, and must still adopt control measures to minimize pollutant
discharges and meet water quality standards.
The permit clarifies that if circumstances change and industrial materials or activities
become exposed to stormwater or facilities become active and/or staffed, this exception
no longer applies and operators must immediately begin complying with the applicable
benchmark monitoring requirements under Part 4.2 as if they were in the first year of permit
coverage, and notify EPA of the change in the NOI by submitting a "Change NOI" form. In
the same way, if an operator does not qualify for this exception at the time it is authorized
to discharge, but during the permit term the facility becomes inactive and unstaffed, and
there are no industrial materials or activities that are exposed to stormwater, then the
operator must notify EPA of this change in the "Change NOI" form. The operator may
discontinue benchmark monitoring once they have done so, and have prepared and
signed the statement described above concerning their qualification for this special
exception.
Page 72 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 4.2.2 Effluent Limitations Monitoring
Numeric effluent limitations have been included in previous versions of the MSGP, based on
national effluent limitation guidelines for certain industry-specific discharges (see Part 4.2.2).
Consistent with minimum monitoring requirements for NPDES permit limits established at 40
CFR 122.44(i), operators must monitor for these parameters at least once each year for the
duration of permit coverage. Numeric effluent limitations are specified in the sector-specific
requirements in Part 8. Monitoring for all parameters must be conducted according to the
procedures in Part 4.1 unless otherwise noted.
The 2020 MSGP retains the requirement for corrective action whenever there is an
exceedance of a numeric effluent limitation. EPA also clarifies that, in contrast to
benchmarks, an exceedance of an effluent limitation constitutes a violation of the permit.
Failure to conduct required corrective action and follow-up monitoring as required in Part
4.2.2.3 is an additional violation.
Additionally, facilities that use coal simply for steam generation are not subject to numeric
effluent limitations. Applicable control measures for these facilities must be selected,
designed, installed, and implemented consistent with the stormwater control requirements
established in Part 2 of the permit.
Part 4.2.2.2 clarifies that facilities subject to effluent limitation guidelines are required to
monitor each discharge point discharging stormwater, and that the flexibility afforded for
benchmark and impaired waters monitoring for substantially identical discharge points
does not apply to effluent limitation guidelines monitoring.
Part 4.2.2.3 specifies follow-up monitoring requirements for pollutants that exceed any
effluent limitation contained in the permit. EPA is maintaining the requirement to conduct
follow-up monitoring as a way to ensure that facilities come back into compliance with
applicable effluent limitations as soon as possible. While the NPDES regulations require a
minimum of annual monitoring to demonstrate compliance with applicable effluent
limitations, the vast majority of NPDES permits for industrial wastewater discharges require
more frequent monitoring (up to daily for certain pollutants/sources in some instances).
Monitoring at the regulatory minimum of once per year is appropriate for stormwater
discharges, provided facilities remain in compliance with the numeric effluent limitations.
However, it is appropriate to require more frequent monitoring once the effluent limitation is
exceeded. Otherwise, there would be an additional year to wait to confirm that facilities
have come back into compliance with the limitation. This is an unacceptably long period
for facilities to be potentially out of compliance with the limitation. EPA notes that failure to
complete follow-up monitoring and reporting within the stipulated timeframes constitutes
additional violations of the permit, in addition to the initial effluent limitation violation.
Consistent with other types of effluent monitoring, the permit requires that operators report
follow-up monitoring results to EPA through EPA's DMR system (see Part 7). Procedures and
timeframes for reporting exceedances of numeric effluent limitations are described in Part
7.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Part 4.2.3 State or Tribal Required Monitoring
Where a state or tribe has imposed a numeric effluent limitation, has established a
wasteload allocation, or has stipulated specific monitoring requirement(s) as a condition for
certification under CWA Section 401, a minimum monitoring frequency of once-per-year
has been included in the permit. This annual monitoring frequency applies only if a state or
tribe does not specify an alternative monitoring frequency. Exceedances of state or tribal
numeric effluent limitations are permit violations in the same way as exceedances of
Page 73 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
effluent limitation guidelines-based limitations are violations. Both types of violations require
the same corrective action and follow-up monitoring.
Part 4.2.4 Impaired Waters Monitoring
This Part contains provisions for monitoring discharges to water quality impaired receiving
waters. The following is a step-by-step discussion on how an operator should determine
appropriate monitoring requirements.
Operators must indicate in their NOI whether they discharge to an impaired water, and, if
so, the pollutants causing the impairment, or any pollutants for which there is a TMDL. To
assist operators in determining their receiving waters' information, NeT will automatically
provide receiving waters' information and their impairment status based on the latitude
and longitude of stormwater discharge points the operator provides on the NOI form. This
information is also readily accessible from the state or tribal integrated report/CWA section
303(d) lists of waters.
If the discharge is to an impaired water, the monitoring requirements under Part 4.2.4 are
triggered; otherwise, a facility has no obligations under Part 4.2.4. EPA specifies that facilities
will be considered to discharge to an impaired water if the first water of the U.S. to which
they discharge is identified by a state, tribe, or EPA pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA
as not meeting an applicable water quality standard, or has been removed from the
303(d) list because the impairments are addressed in an EPA-approved or established
TMDL, or is covered by pollution control requirements that meet the requirements of 40 CFR
130.7(b)(1). For discharges that enter a separate storm sewer system prior to discharge, the
first water of the U.S. discharged to is the waterbody that receives the stormwater
discharge from the storm sewer system.
When developing TMDLs, EPA and the states evaluate contributions from upstream
segments and contributing waterbodies. As such, in some instances, upstream sources may
be identified as a contributor to an impairment. Where EPA has reason to believe that
permitted facilities have the potential to not meet applicable water quality standards,
notwithstanding any indication in a facility's NOIs that it does not discharge to an impaired
water, EPA may require the operator to perform additional monitoring and/or adopt
additional control measures to address the potential contribution to the impairment, i.e., to
ensure that the discharge is controlled as necessary to meet water quality standards. In
these instances, EPA will notify the operator, in writing, of any additional obligations,
including monitoring requirements, to meet such water quality-based effluent limit.
The permit requires facilities to monitor for all pollutants for which the receiving waterbody is
impaired, with a few noteworthy exceptions as discussed below. For waters impaired by
pollutants without an approved TMDL, monitoring is required where a standard analytical
test method in 40 CFR Part 136 exists for the pollutant or surrogate parameter. If the
pollutant for which the waterbody is impaired is suspended solids, turbidity or
sediment/sedimentation, the parameter to be monitored is total suspended solids (TSS). If
the pollutant of concern is an indicator or surrogate pollutant, then the pollutant indicator
(e.g., dissolved oxygen) must be monitored. No monitoring is required when a waterbody's
biological communities are impaired but no pollutant is specified as causing the
impairment, or when a waterbody's impairment is related to hydrologic modification,
impaired hydrology, or other non-pollutant (e.g., exotic species, habitat alterations,
objectionable deposits). If a TMDL has been approved or established that applies to the
discharge, EPA will notify the facility of any monitoring requirements based on any
assumptions and requirements of the TMDL and any wasteload allocation for the discharge.
Page 74 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 4.2.4.1 Facilities Required to Monitor Discharges to Impaired Waters
The appropriate impaired waters monitoring frequency is determined Pased on whether
there is an approved or estaPlished TMDL for the pollutant in the impaired water.
Discharges to impaired waters without an EPA-approved or established TMDL
For those facilities discharging to impaired waters without an approved or estaPlished
TMDL, annual monitoring is required for each discharge point discharging to an impaired
water. In the 2015 MSGP, operators had to monitor for all pollutant(s) causing the
impairment or their surrogate(s). For the 2020 MSGP, EPA proposes that operators compare
the list of industrial pollutants identified in Part 6.2.3.2 and any sector-specific Penchmark
monitoring pollutants to the list of pollutants for which the waterPody is impaired and for
which a standard analytical method exists (see 40 CFR Part 136). EPA proposes that
operators must monitor for pollutants that appear on Poth lists, including "indicator" or
"surrogate" pollutants that clearly overlap those lists. This proposal potentially narrows the
list of pollutants that operators must monitor for and ensures those pollutant parameters are
associated with the industrial activity.
For the 2020 MSGP, EPA proposes that following three consecutive years of monitoring,
impaired waters monitoring is no longer required if the pollutant of concern is not detected
and is not expected to Pe present in the discharge, or is detected Put the operator
determined that the pollutant's presence is caused solely Py the natural Packground levels.
This is a change from the 2015 MSGP where impaired waters monitoring could Pe
discontinued after the first year of monitoring. This proposal Palances the potential
narrowing of the pollutant list with an extended timeframe for monitoring, with two
additional samples over two additional years. The Pasis for discontinuing impaired waters
monitoring under this Part must Pe documented and retained with the SWPPP.
Operators are advised to follow the same guidance provided in Part 5.2.4.2 of this Fact
Sheet in determining if the natural Packground exception is applicaPle. Operators should
consult their EPA Regional Office for help, if needed. The same exception may also Pe
availaPle to discharges of pollutants attriPuted solely to run-on sources. This exception is
only availaPle after discussing the situation and receiving guidance and approval from the
appropriate EPA Regional Office.
Any monitoring requirements associated with impaired waters without a TMDL will Pe
automatically prepopulated on a facility's DMR forms in EPA's electronic DMR tool Pased
on the information provided on the NOI form.
EPA notes that, as with all five types of monitoring in the 2020 MSGP, operators can
comPine monitoring activities where requirements are duplicative (e.g., if effluent limitation
guidelines- Pased limits and impaired water monitoring Poth require testing for the same
parameter at the same discharge point).
Dischgrges to impoired waters with gn EPA-approved or estoblished TMDL
If a facility discharges to an impaired water with an approved or estaPlished TMDL,
operators must monitor for the pollutant(s) for which the TMDL was written unless EPA
informs the operator that they are not suPject to such a requirement consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of the TMDL and its wasteload allocation. EPA modified this
requirement in the 2020 MSGP so that operators are assumed to Pe required to monitor for
the pollutant(s) for which the TMDL was written, rather than relying on EPA to affirmatively
inform the operator of such. The operator may contact the EPA Regional Office for
monitoring parameters and frequency.
Page 75 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
The monitoring requirements in Part 4.2.4 are intended to provide the states and EPA with
further information on the impacts stormwater from permitted industrial facilities have on
impaired waters, and to help ensure that the facilities are not causing or contriPuting to the
impairment. For discharges to impaired waters that do not yet have an approved TMDL for
pollutants of concern, these monitoring data are important for developing the TMDL to
identify potential sources of the pollutants causing the impairment(s) as well as to identify
sources that are not likely to contriPute to the impairment(s) and thus may not Pe included
in the TMDL or its wasteload allocation. They are also important for assessing whether
additional water quality-Pased effluent limits, either numeric or qualitative, are necessary
on a site-specific Pasis to ensure that facilities meet water quality standards. For discharges
of pollutants to waters with an approved or estaPlished TMDL, monitoring data provides a
means of ensuring that discharges are controlled consistent with the TMDL, as well as a
useful tool to assess the facility's progress toward achieving necessary pollutant reductions
consistent with any wasteload allocation.
Part 4.2.4.2 Exception for Inactive and Unstaffed Sites
Part 4.2.4.2 of the permit includes an exception from impaired waters monitoring for
facilities that are Poth inactive and unstaffed, when such facilities no longer have industrial
activities or materials exposed to stormwater. See Fact Sheet Part 4.2.1 for further
information aPout this exception. This exception has different requirements for Sectors G, H,
and J.
Part 4.2.5 Additional Monitoring Required by EPA
EPA may determine that additional discharge monitoring is necessary to meet the permit's
effluent limits, specifically the permit's water quality-Pased effluent limit. In this case, EPA will
provide the appropriate facility with a Prief description of why additional monitoring is
needed, locations and parameters to Pe monitored, frequency and period of monitoring,
sample types, and reporting requirements.
Part 5 Corrective Actions and Additional Implementation Measures (AIM)
EPA is proposing new additional implementation measures that are consistent with a
settlement agreement reached Py parties and intervenors challenging the former permit.7
In addition to the proposal related to the settlement agreement, EPA also proposes that the
corrective actions conditions in Part 5.1.1 and suPsequent action deadlines in Part 5.1.2
remain unchanged from the 2015 MSGP. Those conditions in Part 5.1.1 include an
unauthorized release, an exceedance of numeric effluent limits, failed or improperly
installed SCMs, and visual assessments indicating water quality standards may Pe violated.
If any conditions in Part 5.1.1 occurred, Part 5.1.2 requires that the operator implement
timely fixes so that the condition triggering the issue is resolved.
Previous MSGPs also required corrective action in the event of an exceedance of a
Penchmark monitoring value. The 2015 MSGP's corrective action required the facility to
review the SWPPP and adjust SCMs, depending on the facility's assessment, to Pring any
exceedances Pelow the Penchmark threshold.
The additional implementation measures will increase regulatory certainty for those who
must comply with the permit while resolving environmental groups' concerns that the
previous corrective actions were not sufficient to ensure that the permit controlled
discharges as sufficient to protect water quality. In the challenge to the 2015 MSGP,
petitioners posited that the 2015 MSGP's corrective action requirements for Penchmark
7 J. Mot. to Hold Consol. Cases in Abeyance Pending Resp't's Performance Under Settlement Agreement,
Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, Docket No. 15-2091 (L), 15-2259 (CON), 15-2428 (CON), 15-3315 (CON).
Page 76 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
exceedances were inadequate because they allowed facilities to comply with the permit
by making only minimal SCM changes, or no changes, and often these changes did not
lower pollutant levels below the benchmark thresholds, indicating poor stormwater control
effectiveness. Petitioners also wanted repeated unsuccessful attempts by facilities to
reduce pollutant levels below benchmarks to, at some point, be a permit violation. At the
same time, some industry stakeholders wanted more certainty and clarity with respect the
expectations under the permit. EPA's concurs that more specific responses to benchmark
exceedances may be appropriate in certain situations. However, the Agency has always
and continues to hold that benchmark thresholds by themselves are not water quality-
based effluent limits (or any effluent limit) and therefore facilities whose responses to
benchmark exceedances comply with the permit's requirements, but do not achieve sub-
benchmark pollutant levels, cannot be in violation of the permit, because a benchmark
exceedance is not definitive proof that a water quality standard has been exceeded. EPA
is therefore proposing in the 2020 MSGP a clearer process to improve the previous permit's
requirements for responding to benchmark exceedances.
The proposed improvement to the permit's provisions for responding to benchmark
exceedances include a three-stage protocol that gets progressively more prescriptive with
the required SCMs, and thus more protective, when quarterly monitoring results exceed or
repeatedly exceed benchmark values. There are three stages of response, known in the
2020 MSGP proposal as "Additional Implementation Measures" or "AIM"; so-named to
bolster EPA's long-held position that benchmark exceedances alone are not permit
violations nor do they signify a condition that is in violation of the permit. The 3-tiered AIM
protocol would be triggered after a facility has either a single egregious exceedance of a
benchmark value (e.g., greater than 4 or 8 times the benchmark), or high levels of quarterly
sampling average exceedances. The proposed AIM requirements apply on parameter-
specific basis and supplement, as opposed to supplant, the technology-based, water
quality-based, and remaining provisions of the permit. Regarding annual averages, their
calculation (i.e., the clock) is reset upon triggering and complying with each tier individually
above.
Consistent with the settlement agreement, the AIM requirements would apply on a
parameter-specific basis, would not themselves constitute water quality-based effluent
limits, and would supplement, as opposed to supplant, the technology-based, water
quality-based, and remaining provisions of the permit. Regarding annual averages, their
calculation (i.e., the clock) is reset upon triggering and complying with each tier
individually. And regarding Tier 2, an operator may only avail itself of the "aberration"
demonstration opportunity one time per parameter per discharge point, which shall
include substantially similar discharge points.
Specific details about each AIM tier are discussed further below.
Part 5.1 Corrective Action
Part 5.1.1 Conditions Requiring SWPPP Review and Revision to Ensure Effluent Limits are Met
As discussed above, EPA is proposing that the corrective actions conditions in Part 5.1.1 and
subsequent action deadlines in Part 5.1.2 remain unchanged from the 2015 MSGP. If
operators find that any of the conditions in Part 5.1.1 of the proposed 2020 MSGP have
occurred, they are required to review and revise their SWPPP to eliminate the condition so
that the permit's effluent limits are met and pollutant discharges are minimized. Operators
may become aware of these conditions through an inspection, monitoring, or other means,
or if EPA informs the operator of the condition (s).
The SWPPP review should focus on sources of pollution, spill and leak procedures, non-
stormwater discharges, selection, design, installation and implementation of control
Page 77 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
measures. Part 5.1 of the proposed 2020 MSGP specifies the following conditions requiring
review and revision to ensure effluent limits are met, which are identical to the correction
action triggering conditions in the 2015 MSGP:
• An unauthorized release or discharge (e.g., spill, leak, or discharge of non-stormwater
not authorized Py the MSGP or another NPDES permit) occurring at the facility.
• A discharge that violates a numeric effluent limitation listed in TaPle 2-1 and/or in the
Part 8 sector- specific requirements.
• Control measures that are not stringent enough for the discharge to meet applicaPle
water quality standards or the non-numeric effluent limits in the permit.
• Where a required control measure was never installed, was installed incorrectly, or not
in accordance with Parts 2 and/or 8, or is not Peing properly operated ormaintained.
• Whenever a visual assessment shows evidence of stormwater pollution (e.g., color,
odor, floating solids, settled solids, suspended solids,foam).
Part 5.1.2 Deadlines for Corrective Actions
The proposed 2020 MSGP includes specific deadlines for taking corrective actions to
remedy deficiencies. These proposed deadlines remain largely unchanged from the 2015
MSGP. The time limits in Part 5 are those that EPA considers reasonaPle for making the
necessary repairs or modifications and are included specifically so that inadequacies are
not allowed to persist indefinitely.
When conditions exist that trigger corrective action, a facility must immediately take (i.e.,
on the same day the condition was found) all reasonaPle steps to minimize or prevent
pollutant discharges until the operator can implement a permanent solution
The permit's proposed immediate actions are suPstantially similar to requirements in the
2015 MSGP. Minor changes are clarifying that "all reasonaPle steps" means responding to
the conditions triggering the corrective action (the 2015 MSGP descriPes "all reasonaPle
steps" to Pe undertaking initial actions to assess and address the condition causing the
corrective action). Additionally, EPA clarifies in the proposed permit that when corrective
actions are identified too late in the work day, the corrective action must Pe performed Py
the following work day morning (the 2015 MSGP specified that corrective action Pe
initiated the following work day). These proposed changes provide greater assurance that
corrective actions are implemented expeditiously to minimize pollutant discharges.
The proposed 2020 MSGP requires that the operator take suPsequent action to implement
a permanent solution no later than 14 calendar days from discovering the corrective
action-triggering condition (e.g., Py installing a new or modifying an existing control or Py
completing any needed stormwater control repairs). This proposed requirement has not
changed from the 2015 MSGP.
EPA does recognize that there may Pe circumstances in which immediate action to initiate
corrective action may not Pe possiPle within the same day a corrective action condition is
found. "All reasonaPle steps" does not necessitate taking action when it is unsafe to do so
(e.g., due to inclement weather). EPA also recognizes that there may Pe circumstances
where it is not feasiPle to complete needed corrective actions within 14 days, and
therefore provides that operators may modify the schedule for completing the corrective
action so that corrective action is taken as soon as practicaPle after the 14-day timeframe,
and is completed no later than 45 days after discovery of the triggering condition. If the will
take longer than 45-days to complete the corrective action, the permit also allows
operators to take the minimum additional time necessary to complete the corrective
action, provided that the operator notifies the EPA Regional Office. Operators must provide
Page 78 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
a rationale for an extension of the timeframe, and a corrective action completion date to
the EPA Regional Office, and also include this in their corrective action documentation.
EPA recognizes that identifying Poth the need to take corrective action and the
appropriate modifications to the control measures will, in some cases, Pe an iterative
process. Several storm events may Pe needed to determine how to fully resolve the
triggering issue(s). For example, if a visual assessment indicates that the facility is
discharging suspended solids in stormwater, an appropriate corrective action may Pe to
immediately clean up any signs of visiPle sources of the pollutants on the site (e.g., through
immediate sweeping or vacuuming of exposed surfaces), and then to review the SWPPP to
identify additional potential deficiencies or pollutant sources. If poor housekeeping is
suspected to Pe the cause, permittees may decide to implement a new schedule of
increased sweeping or vacuuming within 14 calendar days. However, if a suPsequent visual
assessment indicates that suspended solids remain a stormwater pollution issue that would
Pe a separate corrective action-triggering event. In such a case, operators would
undertake the corrective action review process again in order to assess and correct other
deficiencies that are suspected to Pe the cause, meaning that the corrective action
deadlines in Part 5.1.2 would Pe reset.
EPA emphasizes that these timeframes are not grace periods within which an operator is
relieved of any liability for a permit violation that may have triggered the corrective action.
If the original inadequacy triggering a corrective action constitutes a permit violation, then
that violation is not deferred or erased by the timeframe EPA has allotted for corrective
action. In all cases, failing to take corrective action as required in Part 5 constitutes a permit
violation separate and apart from any violation that the triggering event may have
constituted.
Part 5.1.3 Effect of Corrective Action
The permit states that if the condition triggering the corrective action review is a permit
violation (e.g., exceedance of a numeric effluent limitation), correcting it does not remove
the original violation. Additionally, failure to take corrective action in accordance with Part
5 is a separate permit violation (in addition to any permit violation that may have triggered
corrective action). EPA will consider the appropriateness and promptness of corrective
action in determining enforcement responses to permit violations. This proposed provision is
unchanged from the 2015 MSGP.
Part 5.1.4 Substantially Identical Discharge Points
If the event triggering corrective action is associated with an discharge point that has been
identified as a "substantially identical discharge points" (see Parts 3.2.4.5 and 4.1.1),
permittees must assess the need for corrective action for all related substantially identical
discharge points. Any necessary changes to control measures that affect these other
discharge points must also be made before the next storm event if possible, or as soon as
practicable following that storm event. Any corrective actions must be conducted within
the timeframes set forth in Part 5.1.2.
Part 5.2 Additional Implementation Measures fAIA/D
As discussed above, EPA is proposing improvements to the permit's provisions for
responding to benchmark exceedances. EPA is proposing a three-stage protocol that gets
progressively more prescriptive with the required SCMs, and thus more protective, when
monitoring results exceed or repeatedly exceed benchmark values. For the next proposed
2025 MSGP, EPA will evaluate the benchmark monitoring data submitted under this permit
along with data on the AIM Tiers triggered by any benchmark exceedances to analyze the
Page 79 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
effectiveness of the AIM response requirements (i.e., implementing more roPust SCMs) on
reducing Penchmark exceedances. The following is a discussion of each proposed AIM tier.
Part 5.2.1 AIM Tier 1
Part 5.2.1.1 AIM Tier 1 Triggering Events
AIM Tier 1 has two proposed triggering events. The first trigger of AIM Tier 1 is Pased on a
quarterly sampling annual average Penchmark exceedance. Here, AIM is triggered when
a four-sample average exceeds a Penchmark value. If the facility takes less than four
Penchmark samples and the results are such that an exceedance of the four-quarter
average is mathematically certain (i.e., if the sum of quarterly sample results to date is more
than four times the Penchmark value) then the facility has exceeded the Penchmark,
triggering AIM Tier 1. Using a different method of determining what would Pe an
appropriate maximum level, e.g., Pased on the standard deviation for an assumed normal
(Gaussian) distriPution of analytes, EPA deemed to Pe overly complicated and would lead
to too many compliance errors.
The second trigger of AIM Tier 1 is Pased on the same principle as the first trigger, only this
time the exceedance that triggers AIM is a single sampling result that is more than four
times the Penchmark value. This means that even with three other samples achieving zero
values, that single sample would still make the four-sample average exceed Py up to Put
less than or equal to two times the Penchmark value. If a single sample exceeds the
Penchmark value Py more than 8 times, the operator would trigger AIM Tier 2.
Reguest for Comment 21: EPA requests comment on requiring an AIM Tier 1 trigger Pased on facility
changes, i.e., if construction or a change in design, operation, or maintenance at the facility
significantly changes the nature of pollutants discharged in stormwater from the facility, or
significantly increases the quantity of pollutants discharged. A similar trigger was included in Part
4.2 of the 2015 MSGP as a condition requiring SWPP review to determine if modifications were
necessary.
Port 5.2.1.2 AIM Tier 1 Responses
There are three proposed responses for any Tier 1 trigger. First the facility would need to
immediately review existing control measures, SWPPP, and other on-site activities to see if
any actions or SWPPP revisions are necessary. Examples of portions of the facility's control
measures, SWPPP, and other on-site activities it should review include: sources of pollution,
spill and leak procedures, non-stormwater discharges, and selection, design, installation,
and implementation of your control measures. Secondly, after reviewing the control
measures and SWPPP, the facility would install those additional implementation measures,
such as a single comprehensive clean-up, a change in suPcontractor, a modification or
replacement of an existing SCM, and/or increased inspections, to Pring the exceedances
Pelow the parameter's Penchmark threshold in order to suspend the AIM process.
However, a facility could determine that, after reviewing the control measures and SWPPP,
that nothing further needs to Pe done to achieve lower pollutant levels. In this case, the
facility would Pe required to document per Part 5.3 and include in the annual report why it
expected its existing SWPPP and SCMs to Pring exceedances Pelow the parameter's
Penchmark threshold for the next 12-month period. With the variaPility of stormwater and
the small sample set of monitoring results, it may Pe reasonaPle for the facility to conclude
that the current control measures are performing appropriately and further monitoring will
support that the facility's existing controls will achieve the necessary pollutant reductions.
This response mirrors the 2015 MSGP's corrective action response requirements. The third
response to an AIM Tier 1 trigger is that quarterly monitoring would continue into the next
year. Even if AIM was triggered in the first quarter of the first year of monitoring, EPA
proposes that the facility would first comply with AIM Tier 1 requirements, continue
Page 80 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
monitoring for the remaining three quarters, and then continue monitoring into the
following year.
Part 5.2.1.3 AIM Tier 1 Deadlines
EPA proposes that if any actions or modifications to the control measures are necessary
from an AIM Tier 1 trigger that the operator would Pe required to implement those actions
or modifications within 14 days. If doing so within 14 days is infeasiPle, the operator would
Pe required to document per Part 5.3 why it is infeasiPle and then would Pe required to
implement such actions or modifications within 45 days. EPA is proposing the 14-day
deadline for AIM Tier 1 responses Pecause achieving Penchmark averages under the
threshold to avoid further AIM requirements should provide the impetus to make timely
changes, if deemed necessary.
Part 5.2.2 AIM Tier 2
The proposed AIM Tier 2 triggering events are either from continued or repeat Penchmark
exceedances after Tier 1 or Py significant Penchmark exceedances that are greater than
Tier 1 (Poth annual average and single-sample). The first trigger for AIM Tier 2 is repeat
Penchmark exceedances from Tier 1, where two consecutive annual averages each
exceed a Penchmark value. The other two triggers for AIM Tier 2 are more significant
Penchmark exceedances that would cause the operator to immediately trigger Tier 2 and
skip Tier 1. These triggers are two sampling events for a parameter within a two-year period
Peing over four times the Penchmark threshold; or a single sample Peing more than eight
times the Penchmark threshold (unless the operator immediately documents in per Part 5.3
that the single event was an aPerration, how any measures with 14 days of such event will
prevent a reoccurrence, and takes a sample during the next qualifying rain event that is
either less than the Penchmark threshold, in which case the operator does not trigger any
AIM requirement Pased on the aPerrant event, or less than 4 times Put greater than 1 times
the Penchmark threshold, in which case the operator triggers Tier 1; however, an operator
may only avail itself of the aPerration demonstration opportunity one time per parameter
per discharge point, which shall include suPstantially similar discharge points).
Request for Comment 22: EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate to make the aPove
exception for an "aPerrant event" in proposed Part 5.2.2.1 .c.i availaPle to other AIM Tier levels
and/or AIM triggering events. EPA requests comment on any additional action(s), analysis, or
documentation that should Pe required as part of this exception and any appropriate or
alternative timeframes for complying with the exception. For example, immediate mitigation so
that there is no further discharge or chance of discharge of the pollutants of concern;
documentation (including photographs) in an incident report that explains how this lone event was
an aPerration and how any permanent measures you implement will prevent a reoccurrence; and
whether any incident report should Pe suPmitted to the EPA Region.
Part 5.2.2.2 AIM Tier 2 Responses
Exceedances of Tier 2 magnitude are likely to warrant mandatory fixes. Therefore, after Tier
2 is triggered, the Tier 2 response would require the operator to select and implement all
feasiPle SCMs from the appropriate sector-specific Stormwater Control Measure Checklist(s)
that applies to their facility, which are found in Appendix O of the permit. These checklists
enumerate the types of industrial activities and pollutant sources typically found at
regulated facilities, Proken out Py the MSGP's 29 sectors. For each activity/pollutant source,
there are a suite of SCMs that an operator could implement to control discharges from the
respective activities/pollutant sources. Checklist SCMs are mostly of the pollutant
prevention type, along with Pasic stormwater treatment (e.g., inlet filters), and enhanced
training and inspections. Because the SCM Checklists are intended to Pe as complete as
possiPle, SCMs may Pe inappropriate, interchangeaPle or redundant, and thus not relevant
Page 81 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
once the specific activity/pollutant source is adequately controlled. In addition, many of
the SCMs may already Pe included in the operator's SWPPP as part of compliance with the
MSGP's Part 2 effluent limitations.
To lower pollutant levels Pelow Penchmarks (to Petter protect water quality and enaPle
operators to get out of the AIM process), EPA is proposing to require operators to select
from the checklist(s) those SCMs Pest suited for their site-specific conditions, sources, and
pollutants (if not already implemented) and to notate on their checklist whether the SCM is
implemented. For those SCMs deemed redundant or not needed (e.g., due to already
Peing present, not having the specific activity/pollutant source at the site, source is not
exposed to stormwater, some other SCM is providing the same function, etc.), the operator
must indicate why the SCM is not Peing selected. This helps ensure that SCM selections are
made with rigor and completeness, yielding an effective SWPPP. The final response to an
AIM Tier 2 trigger is that quarterly monitoring would continue into the next year.
Part 5.2.2.3 AIM Tier 2 Deadlines
The operator would Pe required to select and implement all feasiPle SCMs to comply with
Tier 2 within 14 days and document per Part 5.3 how the measures will achieve Penchmark
thresholds. If the operator does not to implement an SCM from the checklist, then it would
Pe required to document why it did not implement such measures per Part 5.3. If it is
infeasiPle for the operator to implement a measure within 14 days, it may take up to 45
days to implement such measures, Put would Pe required to document per Part 5.3 why it
was infeasiPle to do so within in 14 days. EPA may also grant you an extension Peyond 45
days Pased on an appropriate demonstration Py the operator. While persistent high levels
of pollutants should Pe mitigated as soon as possiPle, EPA acknowledges that operators
may need more time for planning, designing, and funding purposes. After full
implementation of the Tier 2-mandated SCMs, an operator must commence another cycle
of quarterly Penchmark monitoring for all discharge points. The suPstantially identical
discharge points provision that normally reduces monitoring Purdens no longer applies to
ensure pollutant loads from all discharges are Peing mitigated.
Part 5.2.3 AIM Tier 3
The proposed AIM Tier 3 triggering events are either from continued or repeat Penchmark
exceedances after Tier 2 or Py significant Penchmark exceedances that are greater than
Tier 1 and Tier 2 (Poth annual average and single-sample). The first two triggers for AIM Tier 3
mirror previous Tier triggers: repeat Penchmark exceedances from Tier 2, where for a third
year in a row the annual average exceeds a Penchmark value; or a third single quarterly
monitoring result within a three-year period is more than four times the Penchmark value. A
repeat of Tier 2 triggers again indicates the operator's responses to Tier 2 were ineffective
and an even higher-level response is now necessary in Tier 3. There are two other triggers for
AIM Tier 3 for more significant Penchmark exceedances that would cause the operator to
immediately trigger Tier 3 and skip Tiers 1 and 2: two sampling events for a parameter within
a three-year period are each over 8 times the Penchmark threshold; or four consecutive
samples for a parameter are over the Penchmark threshold and their average is more than
two times the Penchmark threshold.
Part 5.2.3.2 AIM Tier 3 Responses
The Tier 3 response would require an operator to implement one or more permanent,
structural or treatment technology train appropriate for the pollutants of concern.
Treatment removes pollutants from effluent rather than the more prevalent stormwater
approach of pollution prevention. Structural controls could include Puilding structures to
prevent stormwater from Peing discharged. Treatment and structural controls are regarded
as a last resort due to the complexity and cost to the operator and is proposed to Pe
Page 82 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
mandated only when earlier attempts to lower pollutants via pollution prevention and other
procedural changes fail to do so, or a single sample exceedance is so large that the
average would Pe well aPove the Penchmark. EPA Pelieves very few operators will need to
comply with Tier 3 after completing Tiers 1 or 2.
An exception EPA is proposing to AIM Tier 3 would Pe applicaPle when an operator has
acquired sufficient data and generates an analysis that demonstrates that their discharges
do not and will not result in any exceedance of a water quality standard. Computer
models would likely Pe used to make such a case, such as SWMM, DR3M and HSPF. EPA
proposes that an exception for feasiPility at AIM Tier 3 is inappropriate Pecause Penchmark
exceedances at AIM Tier 3 are suPstantially egregious to warrant the permanent control
measures proposed to Pe implemented, that feasiPility considerations are already
accounted for in the previous AIM Tiers, and that industrial stormwater discharges are
explicitly required to meet all provisions of CWA §301, including applicaPle water quality
standards (CWA §402(p) (3) (A)).
Request for Comment 23: EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate to make the aPove
exception for a "discharges not resulting in any exceedance of water quality standards" in
proposed Part 5.2.3.3.b available to other AIM Tier levels and/or AIM triggering events.
A second option is also available under Tier 3 to install infiltration or retention controls as a
substitute or adjunct to permanent treatment controls, albeit this option is not always
feasible. If the site-specific conditions are conducive to it, an operator can infiltrate
stormwater discharges via a retention pond or an underground injection well, or retain the
discharge on site using green infrastructure. The intent of this option is simply to not
discharge pollutants offsite. There are numerous obstacles to using of this option, such as
aquifer impacts, hydrologic connectivity to water bodies, and the type of pollutants of
concern. EPA intends to develop guidance on determining the feasibility of an
infiltration/retention approach and how to implement it for industrial stormwater discharges.
Because this is a new approach and the potential for adverse impacts to groundwater, EPA
is proposing that operators who intend to invoke this Tier 3 alternative would be required to
submit their analysis to the EPA Regional Office for approval, showing their infiltration
controls would be appropriate, safe, in compliance with other laws and regulations, and
effective in lieu of treatment for the high pollutant discharges. The final response to an AIM
Tier 3 trigger is that quarterly monitoring would continue into the next year.
Part 5.2.3.3 AIM Tier 3 Deadlines
EPA is proposing that installation of appropriate treatment control measures would be
required to be completed within 30 days of the Tier 3 triggering event. If is not feasible
within 30 days, the operator may take up to 90 days to install such measures, documenting
per Part 5.3 why it is infeasible to install the measure within 30 days. EPA may also grant an
extension beyond 90 days based on an appropriate demonstration by the operator. If after
AIM Tier 3 compliance, the operator continues to exceed the benchmark threshold for the
same parameter, EPA may require you to apply for an individual permit.
Part 5.2.4 AIM Exceptions
The proposed AIM protocol has two proposed exceptions that could allow an operator to
be relieved of compliance with AIM requirements at any AIM Tier level. These exceptions
are carry-overs from the 2015 MSGP: one being run-on from a neighboring source which
elevates the operator's pollutant levels, which requires EPA approval before the operator
can qualify for this exception, and the other being natural background levels of pollutants
causing the elevated levels.
Details on AIM Exception due to Natural Background Pollutant Levels
Page 83 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
EPA maintains from the 2015 MSGP the option for facilities to justify Penchmark
exceedanoes Pased on local natural Packground concentrations, with some
modifications. Part 5.2.4.2 allows for an exception from AIM requirements and further
Penchmark monitoring when natural Packground levels are solely responsiPle for the
exceedance of a Penchmark threshold, provided that all the following conditions are met
and the operator suPmits an analysis and documentation to the EPA Regional Office:
• The four-quarter average concentration of your Penchmark monitoring results minus the
concentration of that pollutant in the natural Packground is less than or equal to the
Penchmark threshold; and
• You document and maintain with your SWPPP, as required in Part 6.5, your supporting
rationale for concluding that Penchmark exceedances are in fact attriPutaPle solely to
natural Packground pollutant levels. You must include in your supporting rationale any
data previously collected Py you or others (including literature studies) that descriPe the
levels of natural Packground pollutants in your stormwater discharge. Natural
Packground pollutants are those suPstances that are naturally occurring in soils or
ground water. Natural Packground pollutants do not include legacy pollutants from
earlier activity on your site, or pollutants in run-on from neighPoring sources which are
not naturally occurring, such as other industrial facilities or roadways.
For example, assume the Penchmark monitoring threshold for a parameter is 100 mg/L, the
natural Packground concentration is 80 mg/L, and the facility's four-quarter average
concentration for that parameter is 120 mg/L. Because 120 mg/L is an exceedance, the
facility would first suPtract the Packground concentration from the Penchmark monitoring
results to find out the facility's pollutant contriPutions (120 - 80 = 40 mg/L). The facility would
then compare the facility's pollutant contriPutions to the Penchmark threshold to see if
natural Packground levels are solely responsiPle for the exceedance. Because 40 mg/L is
less than the Penchmark threshold (100 mg/L), the exceedance would not have occurred
without the natural Packground contriPution and therefore the facility may invoke this
exception.
Here is another example, Put this time the exception cannot apply: Assume the Penchmark
monitoring threshold for a parameter is 100 mg/L, the natural Packground concentration is
80 mg/L, and the facility's four-quarter average concentration for that parameter is 220
mg/L (an exceedance). First, suPtract the Packground concentration from the Penchmark
exceedance to find out the facility's pollutant contriPutions (220 - 80 = 140 mg/L). The
facility would then compare the facility's pollutant contriPutions to the Penchmark
threshold to see if natural Packground levels are solely responsiPle for the exceedance.
Because 140 mg/L is still higher than the Penchmark threshold (100 mg/L), the exceedance
was caused Py the facility's pollutant discharges and the facility must comply with the AIM
process.
This is a change from the 2015 MSGP's exception for natural Packground concentrations
which required there to Pe no net facility contriPution of the pollutant (i.e., the average
concentration detected in discharges from all facility discharge points required to Pe
monitored for four separate events minus the average natural concentration of the
parameter could not exceed zero). EPA is proposing this change Pecause the newly
proposed method of suPtracting natural Packground concentrations from the total
Penchmark exceedance is a less Purdensome threshold for operators to meet and makes
more sense as a method to determine the contriPutions of natural Packground pollutants.
Request for Comment 24: EPA requests comment on changing the threshold for the natural
Packground exception throughout the permit from the 2015 MSGP, which required no net facility
contriPutions, to the proposed 2020 MSGP method of suPtracting natural Packground
concentrations from the total Penchmark exceedance to determine if natural Packground levels
Page 84 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
are solely responsible for the exceedonce. EPA requests comment on implications of this change
and other factors the Agency should consider in proposing this change to the exception.
Request for Comment 25: EPA requests comment on other appropriate methods to characterize
natural background pollutant concentrations. EPA is aware that the National Stormwater Quality
Database (NSQD) is a collection of urban stormwater runoff data from municipal separate storm
sewer systems (MS4s) and contains concentration data from urban open spaces, among other
land use categories. EPA is concerned this dataset does not accurately represent pollutant
concentrations that are attributable only to natural background sources and whether utilizing
NSQD data to calculate an exception for industrial stormwater dischargers would be appropriate.
EPA requests comment on the advantages and limitations of the NSQD dataset, whether it can be
adjusted for use in the MSGP for calculating natural background concentrations, and how that
could be accomplished.
This natural background exception could apply to parameters such as metals derived from
natural mineral deposits and nutrients attributable to background soil, vegetation, or wildlife
sources. Natural background levels cannot be attributed to run-on from non-natural
sources such as other industrial sites or roadways (however, per Part 5.2.4.3, a facility may
be eligible to discontinue monitoring for pollutants that occur solely from run-on sources). If
background concentrations are not responsible for the benchmark exceedance, the
facility will need to comply with the applicable AIM requirements, per Part 5.2. Facilities
must use the same sample collection, preservation, and analysis methods for natural
background monitoring as required for benchmark monitoring.
If facilities experience average benchmark exceedances for one or more pollutants during
coverage under the 2020 MSGP or suspect that they might have benchmark exceedances
caused entirely by natural background, they can begin monitoring the natural background
pollutant concentrations from a non-human impacted reference site concurrently with
required benchmark monitoring and compliance with AIM requirements. After monitoring
for four quarters and adequately determining that exceedances are the result of pollutants
present in the natural background, facilities may discontinue additional benchmark
sampling if all conditions in Part 5.2.4.2 are met. The following is a list of the types of
information that should be considered to support a rationale for the natural background
exception:
• Map showing the reference site location in relation to facility along with available land
cover information:
• Reference site and facility site elevation:
• Available geology and soil information for reference and facility sites;
• Photographs showing reference site vegetation:
• Reference site reconnaissance survey data regarding presence of roads, discharge
points, or other human-made structures: and
• Records from relevant state or federal agencies indicating no known mining, forestry, or
other human activities upstream of the reference site.
The background concentration of a pollutant in discharges from a non-human impacted
reference site in the same watershed should be determined by evaluating ambient
monitoring data or by using information from a peer-reviewed publication or a local, state,
or federal government publication specific to runoff or stormwater in the immediate region.
Studies that are in other geographic areas, or are based on clearly different topographies
or soils, are not appropriate. When no data are available, and there are no known sources
of the pollutant, the background concentration should be assumed to be zero.
Page 85 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
In cases where historic monitoring data from a site are used for generating a natural
background value, and the site is no longer accessible or able to meet reference site
acceptability criteria, then there must be documentation (e.g., historic land use maps) that
the site met reference site criteria (indicating absence of human activity) during the time
data collection occurred.
The justification for this exception must be kept on-site with the facilities' SWPPP (see Part
6.5), and made available to EPA for concurrence. EPA may review the facility's
determinations that a benchmark exceedance is based solely on natural background
concentrations, and disallow the exception if the Agency finds the documentation
inadequate. Facilities that have previously made a determination that benchmark
exceedances are attributable solely to the presence of that pollutant in the natural
background may be able to rely on a previous analysis and rationale for waiving
compliance with AIM requirements and discontinuing benchmark monitoring under the
2020 MSGP. However, these facilities must conduct four quarters of benchmark monitoring
in the first year of permit coverage under the 2020 MSGP and the results must continue to
show that the four-quarter average concentration of the benchmark monitoring results
minus the concentration of that pollutant in the natural background is less than or equal to
the benchmark threshold.. In such circumstances, there is no ongoing burden to comply
with AIM requirements or to expend additional resources in justifying the rationale for
meeting this exception, and benchmark monitoring can be discontinued for the permit
term (except for universal benchmark monitoring of pH, TSS, and COD).
Details on AIM Exception due to Run-On
This operator is not required to perform AIM or additional benchmark monitoring for any
parameters for which it can demonstrate and obtain EPA agreement that run-on from a
neighboring source (e.g., a source external to the facility) is the cause of the exceedance,
provided that all the following conditions are met and the operator submits its analysis and
documentation to the EPA Regional Office for concurrence:
• After reviewing and revising your SWPPP, as appropriate, you should notify the other
facility or entity contributing run-on to your discharges and request that they abate their
pollutant contribution.
• If the other facility or entity fails to take action to address their discharges or sources of
pollutants, you should contact your EPA Regional Office.
Part 5.3 Corrective Action and AIM Documentation
For any event described in Parts 5.1, 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.1, or 5.2.3.1, operators must document
basic information describing the event that triggers corrective action and their response to
that event. As described previously, the permit establishes conditions for both immediate
and longer response periods. Operators must maintain a copy of this documentation with
their SWPPP as well as summarize this information in the annual report. These documentation
requirements are substantially similar to the 2015 MSGP.
Request for Comment 26: EPA requests comment on methods for tracking AIM Tiers that may have
been triggered by an operator. One approach could be to require the operator to self-select any
AIM Tiers that have been triggered in the past quarter when submitting quarterly monitoring results
per proposed Part 7.4.
Part 6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan fSWPPP)
This Part requires operators to develop a SWPPP to document the specific control measures
they will use to meet the limits contained in Part 2 and Part 8, if applicable, as well as to
document compliance with other permit requirements (e.g., monitoring, recordkeeping,
Page 86 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
reporting). The SWPPP itself does not contain effluent limits; rather, it constitutes a tool to
assist operators, inspectors, and other authorities in ensuring and documenting that effluent
limits are met. Per Part 6.3, this documentation must Pe kept up-to-date (e.g., with
inspection findings, after stormwater controls are modified). Failure to develop and
maintain a current SWPPP is a recordkeeping violation of the permit, and is separate and
distinct from a violation of any of the other suPstantive requirements in the permit, such as
effluent limits, corrective action, inspections, monitoring, reporting, and sector- or state-
specific requirements. For the proposed 2020 MSGP, EPA added a proposed clarification in
this Part that facilities should consider the SWPPP to Pe a living document and that keeping
the SWPPP up-date-also entails making revisions and improvements to their stormwater
management program Pased on new information and experiences with wet weather
events, including with major storm events.
To Pe covered under the MSGP, operators must complete a SWPPP prior to suPmitting an
NOI for permit coverage (existing MSGP-permitted facilities must update their existing
SWPPP). Doing so helps to ensure that operators have (1) taken steps to identify all sources
of pollutant discharges in stormwater; and (2) implemented appropriate measures to
control these discharges in advance of authorization to discharge under the new permit.
This Part contains most of the required elements to Pe documented in the SWPPP; however,
sector-specific SWPPP documentation requirements are also included in Part 8 of the
permit. Those permit elements that all facilities must document include: 1) the estaPlishment
of a stormwater pollution prevention team; 2) a description of the site; 3) a summary of
potential pollutant sources; 4) a description of control measures; 5) monitoring and
inspection procedures (including schedules); 6) documentation to support eligiPility
considerations under other federal laws; and 7) signature requirements.
Note that any discharges not expressly authorized in the MSGP cannot Pecome authorized
or shielded from liaPility under CWA section 402(k) Py disclosure to EPA, state, or local
authorities after issuance of this permit via any means, including the NOI to Pe covered Py
the permit, the SWPPP, during an inspection, etc.
Part 6.1 Part Personfs) Responsible for Preparing the SWPPP
This Part requires that the operator prepare the SWPPP in accordance with good
engineering practices and to industry standards. Examinations of SWPPPs during inspections
have found some SWPPPs to Pe generic and minimal rather than detailed and site-specific.
With respect to the SWPPP preparation standards requirement, the SWPPP may Pe
developed Py either the facility/operator itself or a contractor, Put it in all cases the person
or party that develops the SWPPP must Pe a "qualified person", and the SWPPP must Pe
certified per the signature requirements in Part 6.2.7. A "qualified person" is a person
knowledgeaPle in the principles and practices of industrial stormwater controls and
pollution prevention, and who possesses the education and aPility to assess conditions at
the industrial facility that could impact stormwater quality, and to assess the effectiveness
of stormwater controls selected and installed to meet the requirements of the permit. The
requirement for a qualified person to develop the SWPPP and then Pe certified provides
accountaPility and increases the chance that SWPPPs will Pe availaPle to and followed Py
facility personnel. Regardless of the SWPPP certification, EPA may still determine after
reviewing a SWPPP that it is not in compliance with the requirements of Part 6.2. In this
instance, EPA may require the SWPPP to Pe reviewed, amended as necessary, and
certified Py a Professional Engineer with the education and experience necessary to
prepare an adequate SWPPP. For the mining sectors (G, H and J), the certifier may also Pe
a Professional Geologist. This professional credentials requirement option is for severely
Page 87 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
and/orpersistently deficient SWPPPs. This requirement engenders no additional Purden
when the permit is fully complied with originally.
Part 6.2 Contents of Your SWPPP
The SWPPP must address the specific requirements in this Part. Operators may choose to
reference other documents in their SWPPP, as appropriate, rather than recreating the same
text in the SWPPP. However, when referencing other documents, operators are responsiPle
for ensuring that their SWPPP and the other documents referenced together contain all the
necessary elements to fully address the elements in Part 6.2. In addition, operators must
ensure that a copy of the referenced document is in an accessiPle format that can Pe
made immediately availaPle to facility employees, EPA, a state or triPe, etc., per Part 6.4,
such as Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans. Regardless of whether
all required SWPPP components are comPined into one document, operators should keep
an index that identifies where individual SWPPP components are addressed.
Part 6.2.1 Pollution Prevention Team
The operator must identify a qualified individual or team responsiPle for developing and
revising the facility's SWPPP. These persons are responsiPle for implementing and
maintaining the control measures to meet effluent limits, and taking corrective action and
AIM responses where necessary. Personnel should Pe chosen for their expertise in the
relevant departments at the facility to ensure that all aspects of facility operations are
considered in developing the plan. The SWPPP must clearly descriPe the responsiPilities of
each team memPer to ensure that each aspect of the plan is covered. EPA expects most
operators will have more than one individual on the team, except for small facilities with
relatively simple plans and/or staff limitations. The permit requires that team memPers have
ready access to any applicaPle portions of the SWPPP and the permit. Identification of the
team in the plan provides notice to facility staff and management (i.e., those responsiPle
for signing and certifying the plan) of the responsiPilities of certain key staff for following
through on compliance with the permit's conditions and limits.
Part 6.2.2 Site Description
The SWPPP must descriPe the industrial activities, materials employed, and physical features
of the facility that may contriPute significant amounts of pollutants in stormwater
discharges. The SWPPP must also contain Poth a general location map of the facility that
shows where the facility is in relationship to receiving waters and other geographical
features, plus a more detailed site map that contains information on facility/site
characteristics that affect stormwater discharge quality and quantity. For areas of the
facility that generate stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity that contain
potentially significant quantities of pollutants (i.e., pollutant amounts that could cause a
water quality standards exceedance), the map must indicate the proPaPle direction of
stormwater flow and the pollutants likely to Pe in the discharge. Flows with a significant
potential to cause soil erosion must Pe identified. The site map must also include locations
of such things as: control measures; receiving waters; stormwater conveyances, inlets and
discharge points; potential pollutant sources; past significant spills or leaks; stormwater
monitoring points; municipal separate storm sewer systems; and locations and sources of
run-on to operators' sites (see the permit for a complete list of required items). To improve
readaPility of the map, some detailed information may Pe kept as an attachment to the
site map and pictures may Pe included, as deemed appropriate. A detailed site
description and site map assists operators in identifying issues and setting priorities for the
selection, design and implementation of measures taken to meet effluent limits, and in
identifying potential changes in materials, materials management practices, or site
features. It is also vital for executing proper inspections.
Page 88 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 6.2.3 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources
This Part requires operators to identify the potential sources of pollutants from industrial
activities that could result in contaminated stormwater discharges, unauthorized non-
stormwater discharges, and potential sources of authorized non-stormwater discharges.
"Stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities" is defined, pursuant to 40 CFR
122.26(b) (14), to include, but not be limited to: stormwater discharges from industrial plant
yards; immediate access roads and rail lines used or traveled by carriers of raw materials,
manufactured products, waste material, or by- products used or created by the facility;
material handling sites; refuse sites; sites used for the application or disposal of process
waste waters; sites used for the storage and maintenance of material handling equipment;
sites used for residual treatment, storage, or disposal; shipping and receiving areas;
manufacturing buildings; storage areas (including tank farms) for raw materials, and
intermediate and final products; and areas where industrial activity has taken place in the
past and significant materials remain and are exposed to stormwater. The term "material
handling activities" is defined in the permit to include storage, loading and unloading,
transportation or conveyance of any raw material, intermediate product, final product, by-
product or waste product. "Stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities"
does not include areas located at a facility separate from the facility's industrial activities,
such as office buildings and accompanying parking lots as long as the drainage from the
excluded areas is not mixed with stormwater drained from the above described areas. Part
6.2.3 is only applicable to those portions of a facility covered under the permit, but the
areas of the facility not covered under the MSGP should be identified and an explanation
provided as to why such areas need not be covered.
Note that potential pollution sources include a facility's roof(s) and other surfaces that
could accumulate pollutants originating from an industrial process and deposited through
the air. Roofs, walls, etc., exposed to emissions from industrial areas can build up such
pollutants over dry periods, which can be mobilized during a rain event or in snowmelt, so
the operator needs to identify these areas and include them in the SWPPP. Likewise,
industrial structures containing materials that could become pollutants discharged in
stormwater (e.g., copper cladding on buildings or zinc from galvanized fences) must also
be identified as potential pollutant sources.
For each area that may be a pollutant source at the site, permittees must describe the
following:
Part 6.2.3.1 Activities in the Area
This description must include a list of the industrial activities at a facility (see the list above),
including any co-located industrial activities that may be exposed to stormwater.
Part 6.2.3.2 Pollutants
For each of the industrial activities described above, operators must document the
associated pollutants or pollutant constituents (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids). The pollutant list must include all significant materials that have been
handled, treated, stored or disposed, and exposed to stormwater in the three years prior to
the date the operator prepares or amends their SWPPP. Also include any additional
significant materials that may become a pollutant source that the operator plans to use
during the permit's term.
EPA defines "significant materials", per 122.26(b) (12), as including but not limited to: raw
materials; fuels; materials such as solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets; finished materials
such as metallic products; raw materials used in food processing or production; hazardous
substances designated under section 101(14) of CERCLA; any chemical the permittee is
Page 89 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
required to report pursuant to section 313 of title III or SARA; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste
products such as ashes, slag and sludge that have the potential to Pe released with
stormwater discharges.
CERCLA section 101(14) defines "hazardous suPstance" to include: a) anysuPstance
designated pursuant to the CWA section 311 (b)(2)(A); b) any element, compound, mixture,
solution or substance designated pursuant to section 102 of CERCLA; c) any hazardous
waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); d) any toxic pollutant listed under CWA
section 307(a); e) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act;
and f) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the
Administrator has taken action pursuant to section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
See 40 CFR 302.4 for the list of such hazardous substances.
Part 6.2.3.3 Spills and Leaks
The operator must document in the SWPPP where potential spills and leaks could occur that
could contribute pollutants to stormwater discharges, and the corresponding discharge
point(s) that could be affected by such spills and leaks. The pollutant list must include all
significant materials that have been handled, treated, stored or disposed, and exposed to
stormwater in the three years prior to SWPPP preparation or amendment. New
owners/operators of existing facilities should try to identify any significant spills or leaks
attributable to past owners (within reason). Significant spills include, but are not limited to,
releases of oil or hazardous substances in excess of quantities that are reportable under
section 311 of the CWA (see 40 CFR 110.10 and 40 CFR 117.21) or section 102 of CERCLA
(see 40 CFR 302.4). Note that significant spills may also include releases of materials that are
not classified as oil or hazardous substances. The list of significant spills and leaks should
include a description of the causes of each spill or leak, the actions taken to respond to
each release, and the actions taken to prevent similar spills or leaks in the future. This effort
will aid operators in developing spill prevention and response procedures and any
additional procedures necessary to fulfill the requirements per Part 2.1.2.4.
As required in Part 5.1.2 of the permit, the operator must document any spills or leaks that
occur while covered under the permit. Documenting spills does not relieve operators of any
reporting requirements established in 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, and 40 CFR 302, or any other
statutory requirements relating to spills or other releases of oils or hazardous substances.
Part 6.2.3.4 Unauthorized Non-Stormwater Discharges
This Part requires the facility to evaluate and document unauthorized non-stormwater
discharges. The documentation must include: the date of any evaluation; a description of
the evaluation criteria used; a list of the discharge points or onsite drainage points that
were directly observed during the evaluation; if there are any unauthorized non-stormwater
discharges, and, if so, the actions taken and/or control measures used to immediately
eliminate those or documentation that shows the facility obtained an individual NPDES
wastewater permit.
Acceptable test or evaluation techniques include, but are not limited to, dye testing,
television surveillance, visual observation of discharge points or other appropriate locations
during dry weather, water balance calculations, and analysis of piping and drainage
schematics. A combination of these mechanisms may be appropriate to complete a
thorough evaluation. In general, smoke tests should not be used for evaluating the
discharge of non-stormwater to a municipal separate storm sewer as many sources of non-
stormwater typically pass through a trap that may limit the effectiveness of the test. Where
the operator discovers unauthorized non-stormwater discharges, the documentation must
also include a description of how the facility immediately eliminated those discharges or a
Page 90 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
documentation showing the facility obtained an individual NPDES wastewater permit for
those discharges.
Common unauthorized discharges and common resolutions include: re-routing sanitary
wastes (e.g., sinks, drinking fountains, toilets) to sanitary sewer systems; obtaining an
appropriate NPDES permit for cooling water or industrial process wastewater discharges;
capping or plugging floor drains; and prohibiting practices such as paint brush washing or
wash bucket dumping into storm drain inlets.
Where a facility identifies an authorized non-stormwater discharge, a facility must
document in their SWPPP the location of that discharge and the appropriate control
measures implemented to meet limits. In many cases, the same types of control measures
for contaminated stormwater would suffice, but the nature and volume of potential
pollutants in the non-stormwater discharges must be taken into consideration in selecting
control measures.
Part 6.2.3.5 Salt Storage
The operator must identify in the SWPPP m any storage piles containing salt, including piles
that are only partially comprised of salt, used for deicing or other commercial or industrial
purposes.
Part 6.2.3.6 Sampling Data
This Part requires existing MSGP-permitted facilities to summarize in their SWPPP all
stormwater discharge sampling data collected during the previous permit term, as
appropriate. Such a summary will support the identification of potential pollutants and
pollutant sources at a facility and also the selection of source control practices to meet
permit limits. The summary must include an adequately descriptive narrative and may also
include data table/figures. Narrative summaries only are appropriate where available data
is very limited or where data results and findings are otherwise easily and concisely
conveyed in a brief paragraph. Summaries utilizing tables or charts are appropriate where
more data are available. New dischargers must provide a summary of any available
stormwater discharge sampling data that they may have, including the methods used to
collect the data and the sample collection location.
Pgrt 6.2.4 Description of Control Megsures to Meet Technology-Bgsed and Wgter Quality-
Bgsed Effluent Limits
Operators must describe in their SWPPP the control measures implemented at their site to
achieve each of the effluent limits in Parts 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 8 (if applicable) and 9 (if
applicable), and to address any stormwater run-on that commingles with discharges
covered under the permit. The description of the control measures must include the
location and type of control implemented, including how the Part 2.1.1 selection and
design considerations were followed, and how they address the pollutant sources in Part
6.2.3. The control measures in Part 2.2 marked with asterisks are not required to be
elaborated on in the SWPPP beyond the inclusion of the requirement language verbatim.
Further discussion of this relaxed documentation requirement is provided in Part 2.1 Control
Measures in this Fact Sheet.
Page 91 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 6.2.5 Schedules and Procedures
Part 6.2.5.1 Pertaining to Control Measures Used to Comply with the Effluent Limits in Part 2
This Part specifies what schedules and operating procedures the operator must document
in a SWPPP for the appropriate Part 2 effluent limits. Documenting these activities will help
improve facility compliance with the requirements.
Good Housekeeping (see also Part 2.1.2.2). Document the schedule or the convention
used for determining when pickup and disposal of waste materials occur, and also a
schedule for routine inspections for leaks and conditions of drums, tanks and containers
Maintenance (see also Part 2.1.2.3). Document the preventative maintenance procedures
and schedules, including for regular inspections, testing, maintenance and repair of all
control measures.
Spill Prevention and Response Procedures (see also Part 2.1.2.4). Document the procedures
for preventing and responding to spills and leaks, including notification procedures.
Document the control measures for material handling and storage, and the procedures for
preventing spills that can contaminate stormwater. Also specify cleanup equipment,
procedures and spill logs, as appropriate.
Erosion and Sediment Control (see also Part 2.1.2.5). Identify any polymers and/or other
chemical treatments used and the purpose.
Employee Training (see also Part 2.1.2.8). Document the content of the training and the
frequency/schedule of training for employees who have duties in areas of industrial
activities suPject to this permit.
Part 6.2.5.2 Pertaining to Inspections and Assessments
This Part requires operators to document in their SWPPP the procedures to Pe followed for
routine facility inspections (Part 3.1) and for quarterly visual assessments (Part 3.2). The
SWPPP must include information such as person(s) or position(s) performing the
inspections/assessments, the specific items to Pe covered Py the inspections/assessments,
and the respective schedules. Operators invoking the exception for inactive and unstaffed
sites for quarterly inspections or visual assessments must provide information in the SWPPP to
support such a claim.
Pgrt 6.2.5.3 Perfgining to Monitoring
This Part requires operators to document in a SWPPP the specific monitoring requirements
and procedures that that they will follow. Operators must include information such as
locations where samples are to Pe collected, person(s) or position(s) responsiPle for
collecting samples, the frequency of sampling and the pollutants to Pe sampled, sampling
protocols, natural Packground level information, if applicaPle, and procedures that will Pe
followed to gather storm event data. Requiring this documentation helps ensure that
operators know aPout their monitoring responsiPilities and should improve facility
compliance with the permit's requirements.
If operators choose to use the suPstantially identical discharge point exception in Part 3 for
quarterly visual assessments or Part 4.2 for Penchmark monitoring, they are required to
descriPe in their SWPPP the locations of each of these discharge points, the general
industrial activities conducted in the drainage area of each discharge point, the control
measures Peing implemented for each discharge point, the exposed materials that are
likely to Pe a significant contriPutor of pollutants to the stormwater discharge, an estimate
Page 92 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
of the runoff coefficient of the drainage area, and why the discharge points are expected
to discharge suPstantially identical effluents.
Part 6.2.6 Documentation to Support Eligibility Considerations Under Other Federal Laws
Part 6.2.6.1 Documentation Regarding Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat
Protection
Identical to the 2015 MSGP, this Part requires SWPPP documentation that supports
operators' endangered and threatened ("listed") species eligiPility criterion selected per
Part 1.1.4 and Appendix E, including: whether listed species are found in proximity to the
facility; a description of any communication Petween the permittee and the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services); results of the
listed species screening process; and, if applicaPle, a description of the measures
implemented to protect the listed species. The operator must document this information to
ensure it is properly eligiPle for permit coverage vis-a-vis endangered species and may Pe
separately reviewed Py EPA and/or the Services.
Pgrt 6.2.6.2 Documentotion Regarding Historic Properties
The SWPPP documentation required for endangered and threatened species and critical
haPitat protection is the same as in the 2015 MSGP that supports operators' historic
properties eligiPility determination per Part 1.1.5 and Appendix F, including: results of their
historic property screening investigations; whether stormwater discharges would have an
effect on a property listed or eligiPle for listing on the National Register of Historic Properties
(NRHP), a summary of any consultation with the SHPO orTHPO; and, if applicaPle, a
description of the measures the operator will implement to avoid or minimize adverse
impacts on historic properties. The operator must document this information to ensure it is
properly eligiPle for permit coverage vis-a-vis historic properties and may Pe separately
reviewed Py SHPOs/THPOs.
Pgrt 6.2.7 Signature Reguirements
This Part requires the operator to sign and date the SWPPP consistent with procedures
detailed in Appendix B, SuPsection 11 (a standard permit condition for signatory
requirements, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.22). Operators may appoint an authorized
representative consistent with EPA regulations if they think it is more appropriate for
someone else to sign the SWPPP certification, e.g., a memPer of the stormwater pollution
prevention plan team. The signature requirement includes an acknowledgment that there
are significant penalties forsuPmitting false information.
Pgrt 6.3 Required Modificotions
This Part requires that the operator update the SWPPP whenever any of the triggering
conditions for corrective action in Part 5.1 occur, or when a review following the triggering
conditions in Part 5.1 indicates that changes to an operator's control measures are
necessary to meet the effluent limits in the permit. The SWPPP must Pe signed and dated Py
an authorized representative each time it is modified. Note that failure to update the
SWPPP is a recordkeeping violation, not a violation of an effluent limit. For example, if an
operator changes its maintenance procedures, Put fails to update its SWPPP to reflect
these changes, a recordkeeping violation will result.
Pgrt 6.4 SWPPP Avgilgbilitv
Identical to the 2015 MSGP, this Part requires that a complete and current SWPPP Pe
accessiPle in any format at the facility and must Pe immediately availaPle to facility
Page 93 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
employees; EPA, a state, or triPe; the operator of an MS4 receiving discharges from the site;
and representatives of the Services at the time of a site inspection. In addition, as descriPed
Pelow, operators must make availaPle either their SWPPP or certain information from their
SWPPP to the puPlic (except for any confidential Pusiness information (CBI) or restricted
information [as defined in Appendix A]).
Enhanced transparency and puPlic accessiPility of required NPDES documentation are
Agency priorities, and will Petter enaPle the goals and requirements of the CWA to Pe met.
The difficulty of oPtaining facility and discharge information often made it more difficult for
citizens and groups to protect their local resources, and reduced the aPility of state and
federal agencies to provide program oversight. Timely, complete, and accurate
information regarding potential pollutant sources, the types and concentration of receiving
water pollution, stormwater control measures implemented, etc., are vital for protecting
water quality and can provide a powerful incentive to improve compliance and
performance. Operators who oPject to making SWPPP information puPlicly availaPle may
instead apply for an individual NPDES permit.
Part 6.4.1 SWPPP Posting on the Internet
The permit provides two options for meeting the requirement to make the operator's SWPPP
or SWPPP information puPlicly availaPle. Part 6.4.1 details the option to provide a URL of the
operator's SWPPP location on their NOI form. Operators using this option must post their
SWPPP on their own wePsite or on an associated wePsite, i.e., a relevant and easily
discerned wePsite such as a corporate or government wePsite, where the facility
suPmitting the SWPPP is identified on the homepage and facility information is presented on
and easily accessed at that wePsite. Operators must post an updated SWPPP at least once
a year no later than 45 days after conducting the final routine facility inspection for the
year required in Part 3.1.
After an NOI is suPmitted, the URL would Pe accessiPle via EPA's Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS) and Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) System.
Although CBI and restricted information may Pe withheld from the puPlic, such information
may not Pe withheld from EPA or the Services.
Part 6.4.2 SWPPP Information Provided on NOI Form
This Part provides the second option for meeting the requirement for operators to make
their SWPPP or SWPPP information puPlicly availaPle. For those facilities with SWPPPs not in a
format that lends themselves to Peing put online or that lack a wePsite to host it, salient
SWPPP information can Pe extracted or summarized and input into the NOI per Part 7.3.
Although not as complete as an entire SWPPP, the information required, such as the control
measures and control measures implemented to comply with the non-numeric technology-
Pased effluent limits required in Part 2.1.2, will Pe sufficient for stakeholders to Pe aware of
what a facility is doing to protect local resources and comply with permit provisions.
Operators must post an updated SWPPP at least once a year no later than 45 days after
conducting the final routine facility inspection for the year required in Part 3.1.
Part 6.5 Additional Documentation Requirements
This Part includes a list of documents, findings, activities and information that the operator
must keep with the SWPPP. EPA requires documentation of various implementation
activities, such as reports of routine facility inspections and descriptions of corrective
actions and/or AIM responses, after facilities are authorized to discharge. This
documentation is useful Poth for facility personnel and EPA (and other agencies')
inspectors to assess overall performance of the control measures selected to meet the
technology-Pased and water quality-Pased effluent limits in the permit.
Page 94 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 7
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Pgrt 7.1
Electronic Reporting Reguirement
Operators must comply with a numPer of different reporting requirements descriPed
throughout the 2020 MSGP. Part 7.2 includes a summary of all of the required information
that the operator must suPmit. Part 7.1 requires all operators to suPmit all NOIs, NOTs, NECs,
annual reports, and Discharge Monitoring Reports DMRs electronically, unless the EPA
Regional Office has granted them a waiver. Waivers may only Pe granted on a case-Py-
case Pasis and must Pe Pased on one of the following conditions: (1) If the operator's
headquarters is physically located in a geographic area (i.e., zip code or census tract) that
is identified as under-served for ProadPand Internet access in the most recent report from
the Federal Communications Commission; or (2) If the operator has significant issues
regarding availaPle computer access or computer capaPility. This requirement is consistent
with EPA's proposed Electronic Reporting Rule (78 FR 46005).
Pgrt 7.3 Additional SWPPP Information Reguired in gn NOI
Part 6.4 requires operators to make some of the information in their SWPPP puPlicly
availaPle. The purpose of this requirement is to Petter inform the puPlic and regulatory
agencies aPout the nature of a facility's activities and permitted discharges that could
impact receiving waters and aPout the facility's compliance with the permit. The permit
provides two options for making this information puPlicly availaPle. One option allows
operators to post their SWPPP on the Internet and provide the URL on their NOI form, per
Part 6.4.1. For those facilities with SWPPPs not in a format that lends itself to Peing put online
or that lack a wePsite to host it, EPA offers a second option under which salient SWPPP
information can Pe extracted verPatim or summarized and included on the NOI form.
Although not as complete as an entire SWPPP, the information required in the NOI, such as
the control measures and control measures implemented to comply with the non-numeric
technology-Pased effluent limits required in Part 2.1.2, will Pe sufficient for stakeholders to
get a good idea of what a regulated facility is doing to protect water resources and
comply with permit provisions. If operators do not provide a SWPPP URL, their NOI form must
include the following salient SWPPP information:
a. Onsite industrial activities and other potential sources of pollutants, including potential
spill and leak areas (see Parts 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.3 and 6.2.3.5):
b. Pollutants or pollutant constituents associated with each industrial activity exposed to
stormwater that could Pe discharged in stormwater and any authorized non-
stormwater discharges listed in Part 1.2.2 (see Parts 6.2.3.2):
c. Stormwater control measures employed to comply with the non-numeric technology-
Pased effluent limits required in Part 2.1.2 and Part 8, and any other measures taken to
comply with the requirements in Part 2.2 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (see
Part 6.2.4). If polymers and/or other chemical treatment will Pe used, the polymers
and/or chemicals used and the purpose must Pe identified:
d. Schedules for good housekeeping and maintenance, and the schedule for all
inspections required in Part 3 (see Parts 5.2.5.1 and 5.2.5.2).
Pgrt 7.4 Reporting Monitoring Dgtg to EPA
The purpose of suPmitting monitoring data to EPA is to document stormwater quality and
identify potential water quality concerns to EPA, states, and stakeholders. Monitoring
requirements (i.e., parameters required to Pe monitored and sample frequency) will Pe
prepopulated on a facility's electronic DMR forms Pased on the information it reported on
Page 95 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
the NOI form (through the NeT system). Accordingly, operators must report certain changes
in monitoring frequency to EPA through the suPmittal of a "Change NOI" form in NeT. These
monitoring changes include:
• All Penchmark monitoring requirements have Peen fulfilled for the permit term;
• All impaired waters monitoring requirements have Peen fulfilled for the permit term;
• Benchmark and/or impaired monitoring requirements no longer apply Pecause the
facility is inactive and unstaffed;
• Benchmark and/or impaired monitoring requirements now apply Pecause the facility
has changed from inactive and unstaffed to active and staffed;
• For Sector G2 only: Discharges from waste rock and overPurden piles have exceeded
Penchmark values;
• A numeric effluent limitation guideline has Peen exceeded;
• A numeric effluent limitation guideline exceedance no longer occurs.
Once monitoring requirements have Peen completely fulfilled, operators are no longer
required to report monitoring results using EPA's electronic DMR reporting tool.
For Penchmark monitoring, EPA notes that sampling results must Pe suPmitted to EPA no
later than 30 days after receiving laPoratory results for each quarter that Penchmark
samples are required to Pe collected per Part 4.2.1.2. For any of monitored discharge points
that did not have a discharge within the reporting period, operators must report using EPA's
electronic DMR reporting tool that there was no discharge for that discharge point no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period.
Part 7.5 Annual Report
In the 2020 MSGP, EPA is retaining the requirement to suPmit electronically an annual
report. This provision, along with SWPPP information Peing made accessiPle, will provide
citizens and other stakeholders with more information aPout activities and discharges that
could affect their receiving waters. The annual report must include a summary of the
routine site inspection and visual assessment findings, corrective action and AIM responses
documentation, and any noncompliance oPserved. Operators must suPmit annual reports
(unless the EPA Regional office has granted a waiver from electronic reporting) Py January
30th for each year of permit coverage.
Part 7.6 Exceedance Report for Numeric Effluent Limitations
As descriPed in Part 4.2.2.3, operators must conduct follow-up monitoring any time a
monitoring event identifies an exceedance of a numeric effluent limitation. Part 7.6
specifies that the operator must suPmit an exceedance report to the EPA Regional Office
no later than 30 days after receiving laPoratory results. Part 7.6 also identifies the specific
information the operator must include in this report, which is necessary for EPA to assess the
potential impact of this discharge on water quality and the adequacy of the operator's
response in addressing the exceedance.
Part 7.7 Additional Standard Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Operators must comply with a numPer of different reporting requirements in the 2020 MSGP.
Specific reporting requirements are included in Part 7; however, additional standard
reporting requirements are included in Part 9 applicaPle to certain states or triPes as well as
standard reporting requirements detailed in Appendix B, SuPsection 12. Part 7.7 includes a
summary of all of the required reports from Appendix B, SuPsection 12, and specifies which
Page 96 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
reports the operator must suPmit to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Reports required
to Pe suPmitted include:
• 24-hour reporting (see Appendix B, SuPsection 12.F) for any noncompliance which may
endanger health or the environment. Any information must Pe provided orally within 24
hours from the time the operator Pecame aware of the circumstances;
• 5-day follow-up reporting to the 24 hour reporting (see Appendix B, SuPsection 12.F) - A
written suPmission must also Pe provided within five days of the time the operator
Pecame aware of the circumstances;
• ReportaPle quantity spills (see Part 2.1.2.4) - The operator must provide notification, as
required under Part 2.1.2.4, as soon as there is knowledge of a leak, spill, or other release
containing a hazardous suPstance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a
reportaPle quantity.
• Planned changes (see Appendix B, SuPsection 12.A) - The operator must give notice to
EPA promptly, no fewer than 30 days prior to making any planned physical alterations
or additions to the permitted facility that qualify the facility as a new source or that
could significantly change the nature or significantly increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged;
• Anticipated noncompliance (see Appendix B, SuPsection 12.B) - The operator must
give advance notice to EPA of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity
which they anticipate will result in noncompliance with permit requirements;
• Compliance schedules (see Appendix B, SuPsection 12.F) - Reports of compliance or
noncompliance with, or any progress reports on, interim and final requirements
contained in any compliance schedule of this permit must Pe suPmitted no later than
14 days following each schedule date;
• Other noncompliance (see Appendix B, SuPsection 12.G) - The operator must report all
instances of noncompliance not reported in your monitoring report (pursuant to Part
7.1), compliance schedule report, or 24-hour report at the time monitoring reports are
suPmitted; and
• Other information (see Appendix B, SuPsection 12.H) - The operator must promptly
suPmit facts or information if the operator Pecomes aware that they failed to suPmit
relevant facts in the NOI, or that they suPmitted incorrect information in the NOI or in
any report.
Part 7.8 Record Retention Requirements
This Part requires operators to maintain certain records to help them assess performance of
control measures and as a way to document compliance with permit conditions. These
requirements are consistent with federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 (j), Put have Peen
tailored to more closely reflect requirements of the MSGP. Part 7.8 descriPes recordkeeping
requirements associated with activities covered under the permit. These include the original
SWPPP and any modifications, to provide an historical record of the SWPPP and its
evolution, additional documentation, all reports and certifications required Py the permit,
monitoring data, and records of all data used to complete the NOI. Operators must retain
copies of these documents for a period of at least three years from the date that the
operator's coverage under the permit expires or is terminated. The recordkeeping
requirements in Appendix B, SuPsection B.12 include a more general statement of the
NPDES standard condition for records retention, Put does not impose additional
requirements on the operator aPove what is required in Part 7.8.
Page 97 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Part 8 Special Requirements for Discharges Associated with Specific Industrial Activities
Except for the changes to the monitoring requirements descriPed in Part 4 of this Fact Sheet
and the changes to individual sectors listed Pelow, the general format and requirements in
the sector-specific parts of the permit (Part 8) are similar to the 2015 MSGP.
Sectors G. H and J (Mining Sectors)
EPA proposes to clarify the language for Sector G monitoring requirements for discharges
from waste rock and overPurden piles at active metal mining facilities (Part 8.G.8.2 and
8.G.8.3). These particular monitoring requirements for Sector G under the 2015 MSGP have
a unique, and potentially confusing, monitoring schedule. Part 8.G.8.2 for discharges from
waste rock and overPurden piles requires the operator to conduct Penchmark monitoring
once in the first year for the parameters listed in TaPle 8.G-2, and twice annually in all
suPsequent years of permit coverage for any parameters for which the Penchmark has
Peen exceeded. Part 8.G.8.3 requires operators to conduct additional analytical
monitoring for other pollutants of concern listed in TaPle 8.G-3. Where a parameter overlaps
for Poth Parts 8.G.8.2 and 8.G.8.3, the operator may use any monitoring results conducted
for Part 8.G.8.2 to satisfy the monitoring requirement for that parameter for Part 8.G.8.3. Part
8.G.8.3 specifies that the monitoring schedule for this additional analytical monitoring
should Pe quarterly monitoring as per Part 4.2.1.2 (Part 6.2.1.2 in the 2015 MSGP). Given the
overlap in parameters the operator is required to monitor for in these two parts and the
potential confusion aPout the monitoring schedules for the same parameter, EPA proposes
to align the monitoring schedule for Part 8.G.8.3 to that of Part 8.G.8.2, that is, once in the
first year and twice annually in all suPsequent years of coverage under this permit for any
parameters for which the Penchmark has Peen exceeded. Radium and uranium analytical
monitoring is also required in Part 8.G.8.3 but these parameters do not have corresponding
benchmarks values in Part 8.G.8.2. Without a benchmark value to compare to, the
operator would be unable to determine if the parameter has been exceeded; therefore
the proposed monitoring schedule of "once in the first year and twice annually in all
subsequent years of coverage under this permit for any parameters for which the
benchmark has been exceeded" would not make sense for these two parameters. EPA
proposes to require the operator to monitor for radium and uranium quarterly for the first
four full quarters of permit coverage commencing no earlier than [insert 90 days after
permit effective date], after which the operator may discontinue monitoring for these two
parameters. EPA also requests comment on suspending the analytical monitoring currently
required for radium and uranium in Part 8.G.8.3 until a relevant water quality criterion and
possible benchmark value can be developed.
Reguest for Comment 27: EPA requests comment on whether the newly proposed language in Part
8.G.8.3 clarifies the monitoring requirements for that part and if the proposed monitoring frequency
is appropriate. EPA also requests comment on suspending the analytical monitoring currently
required for radium and uranium in Part 8.G.8.3 until a relevant water quality criterion and possible
benchmark value can be developed. EPA requests comment on any alternative or additional
clarifications to the monitoring frequencies the agency should consider for this Part.
Sector I (Oil ond Ggs Extraction)
Facilities in Sector I (Oil and Gas Extraction) use many types of chemicals that could
become sources of pollutants in stormwater discharges. These include diesel fuel, oil,
solvents, drilling fluid, acids, and various chemical additives. The NRC study listed ammonia,
lead, nickel, nitrate, zinc, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as pollutants
associated with oil and gas extraction facilities. EPA proposes that facilities in Sector I have
benchmark monitoring for ammonia, nickel, total recoverable lead, nitrate-nitrogen, total
recoverable zinc, and hardness. EPA does not currently have recommended aquatic life
Page 98 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
criteria for PAHs, so no specific PAH Penchmark monitoring would Pe required. However,
the NRC study suggested that COD could Pe used as a surrogate for PAHs and EPA
recognizes that it could Pe a surrogate for other organic pollutants as well. Given that EPA
proposes that all sectors, including I, have required universal Penchmark monitoring for pH,
TSS, and COD, EPA is not proposing to add a sector-specific Penchmark for COD.
Sector P (Land Transportation and Warehousing)
Facilities in Sector P (Land Transportation and Warehousing) typically have areas for vehicle
and equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance, fueling, material storage, and
locomotive sanding areas. They can use on-site chemicals like solvents, diesel fuel, gasoline,
hydraulic fluids, antifreeze, and transmission fluids. Leaks and spills from petroleum-Pased
products and chemicals can also contain PAHs. EPA proposes that facilities in Sector P
have Penchmark monitoring for lead, mercury, and hardness.
Sector R (Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yards)
Facilities in Sector R (Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yards) perform activities like fluid
changes, mechanical repairs, engine maintenance and repair, parts cleaning, refinishing,
paint removal, painting, fueling, metal working, welding, cutting, and grinding. These sorts
of activities can include using solvents, oils, fuel, antifreeze, acid and alkaline wastes,
aPrasives, and paints and can create dust. EPA proposes that facilities in Sector R have
Penchmark monitoring for total recoveraPle chromium, total recoveraPle copper, total
recoveraPle lead, total recoveraPle nickel, total recoveraPle zinc, and hardness.
Pgrt 9 Permit Conditions Applicoble to Specific Stotes. Indian Country or Territories
Section 401 of the CWA (See also 40 CFR § 122.44(d) (3) and §124.53(a)) provides that no
federal license or permit, including NPDES permits, to conduct any activity that may result in
any discharge into navigaPle waters shall Pe granted until the State/TriPe in which the
discharge originates certifies that the discharge will comply with the applicaPle provisions
of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA. In the final permit, the requirements
under this Part of the permit will provide state, U.S. territory and triPal requirements that
these entities certify are necessary in order for the permit to include limits to achieve their
water quality centers water quality standards.
Appendices
Appendix A Definitions and Acronyms
Appendix A provides definitions for permit-specific terms and a list of acronyms used
throughout the permit.
The following definitions were revised in the permit:
• Green Infrastructure - the range of measures that use plant or soil systems, permeaPle
pavement or other permeaPle surfaces or suPstrates, stormwater harvest and reuse, or
landscaping to store, infiltrate, or evapotranspirate stormwater and reduce flows to
sewer systems or to surface waters. See Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362).
• Primary Industrial Activity - EPA mistakenly omitted 122.26(b) (14) (xi) from the list of
activities under this definition in the 2015 MSGP and is amending the definition in the
permit to match 122.26(b) (14).
The following acronyms were added to the permit:
• AIM - Additional Implementation Measures
Page 99 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Appendix B Standard Permit Conditions
Appendix B includes the standard NPDES permit conditions consistent with 40 CFR 122.41.
EPA did not propose any changes the standard permit conditions or to this appendix.
Appendix C Areas Covered
Appendix C specifies in what areas of the country the permit would apply, and includes
specific corresponding permit numPers. EPA added areas where EPA is the permitting
authority in Indian country within the state of New York and Region 4 to the areas eligiPle
for permit coverage under the MSGP. Previously eligiPle operators in Region 4 worked with
the Region directly to get industrial stormwater permit coverage. For the 2020 MSGP, those
operators can seek coverage under EPA's MSGP.
Appendix D Activities Covered
Appendix D descriPes the types of activities covered Py the permit Py suPsector, SIC or
Activity Code, and activity represented. EPA did not propose any changes to activities
covered under the MSGP or to this appendix.
Appendix E Procedures Relating to Endangered Species
Appendix E specifies the Part 1.1.4 eligiPility criteria related to the protection of
endangered and threatened ("listed") species and critical haPitat and the procedures
operators must follow to meet the criteria. See Fact Sheet discussion for Part 1.1.4 for
proposed changes.
Appendix F National Historic Preservotion Act Procedures
EPA did not propose any changes to the historic preservation requirements or this
appendix. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effects of Federal "undertakings" on historic properties that are either listed on, or eligiPle
for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. The term Federal "undertaking" is
defined in the NHPA regulations to include a project, activity, or program of a Federal
agency including those carried out Py or on Pehalf of a Federal agency, those carried out
with Federal financial assistance, and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval.
See 36 CFR 800.16(y). Historic properties are defined in the NHPA regulations to include
prehistoric or historic districts, sites, Puildings, structures, or oPjects that are included in, or
are eligiPle for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. This term includes
artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. See
36 CFR800.16(1).
EPA's issuance of the MSGP is a federal undertaking within the meaning of the NHPA
regulations. To address any issues relating to historic properties in connection with issuance
of the permit, EPA has included criteria for operators to use to certify that potential impacts
of their covered activities on historic properties have Peen appropriately considered and
addressed. Although individual applications for coverage under the general permit do not
constitute separate Federal undertakings, the screening criteria and certifications provide
an appropriate site-specific means of addressing historic property issues in connection with
EPA's issuance of the permit.
Coverage under the 2020 MSGP is availaPle only if operators certify that they meet one of
the eligiPility criteria following the procedures in Appendix F related to compliance with
historic properties protection pursuant to the NHPA. These criteria are used to identify
whether land disturPances associated with the installation or revision of suPsurface
stormwater control measures would affect properties listed in, or eligiPle for listing in, the
Page 100 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
National Register of Historic Properties; and, if so, to determine the measures that will
prevent or mitigate adverse effects to the properties.
EPA does not anticipate any effects on historic properties from the pollutants in the
stormwater discharges covered Py the 2020 MSGP. However, existing and new operators
could undertake activities in connection with the 2020 MSGP that might affect historic
properties if they install or new or modify control measures that involve suPsurface
disturPance. The overwhelming majority of sources covered under the 2020 MSGP will Pe
operators that are seeking renewal of previous permit coverage. If these existing
dischargers are not planning to construct new stormwater controls or conveyance systems,
they have already addressed NHPA issues. In the 2015 MSGP, they were required to certify
that they were either not affecting historic properties or they had oPtained written
agreement from the applicaPle SHPO, THPO, or other triPal representative regarding
methods of mitigating potential impacts. EPA is not aware of any adverse effects on historic
properties under the 2015 MSGP, nor the existence or need for a written agreement.
Therefore, to the extent the 2020 MSGP authorizes renewal of prior coverage without
relevant changes in operation, it has no potential to affect historic properties.
Where operators install or modify control measures that involve suPsurface disturPance, the
area of potential effect (APE) for the activities performed to comply with the permit, for
historic preservation purposes, is limited to the location and depth of the earth disturPance
associated with the installation or modification of the stormwater control measures.
Operators need only consider the APE when doing the historic properties screening
procedures to determine their eligiPility criteria in Appendix F. This is the only scenario where
activities authorized or undertaken in connection with the 2020 MSGP may affect historic
properties. Since Poth new and existing dischargers could undertake such activities, all
operators are required to follow the historic property screening procedures to document
eligiPility.
Appendix G Notice of Intent
Parts 1.3.2 and 7.1 require operators to use the electronic NPDES eReporting Tool system, or
"NeT" system, to prepare and suPmit NOIs. However, where operators request and receive
approval from their EPA Regional Office, they are authorized use the paper NOI form
provided in Appendix G on a case-Py-case Pasis.
Operators must provide the following types of information on the NOI form: (1) Permit
Information, (2) Facility Operator Information, (3) Facility Information, (4) Discharge
Information, (5) SWPPP Information, (6) Endangered Species Protection, (7) Historic
Preservation, and (8) Certification Information. The NOI form provides EPA with the
information necessary to help determine whether industrial operators have issues that could
affect their eligiPility to discharge under the permit, and enaPles EPA to Petter match
operators with their respective monitoring requirements and to prioritize oversight activities.
The NOI form has Peen updated the 2015 permit. New questions on the form include:
• Were you previously covered under the 2015 MSGP? (yes/no)
o If no, do you have a pending enforcement action related to stormwater Py EPA, a
state, or a citizen (to include Poth notices of violation (NOVs) Py EPA or a state and
notices of intent to Pring a citizen suit)? (yes/no)
• Will you, during the term of this permit, use coal-tar sealcoat on paved surfaces where
industrial activities are located? (yes/no)
Appendix H Notice of Termination
Page 101 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
Parts 1.4 and 7.1 require operators to use the NPDES eReporting Tool system, or "NeT"
system, to prepare and suPmit their NOT when any of the conditions in Part 1.4.2 have Peen
met. However, where the EPA Regional Office specifically authorizes operators to use a
paper NOT form, those operators are required to complete and suPmit the paper form
provided in Appendix H. EPA did not propose any changes to the NOT requirements or this
appendix.
Appendix I Annual Reporting Form
Parts 7.1 and 7.5 require operators to use NeT to prepare and suPmit an Annual Report.
However, where the EPA Regional Office specifically authorizes operators to use a paper
Annual Report form, those operators must complete and suPmit the paper form provided in
Appendix I. Information required consists of general information on the facility, summary
findings from the routine facility inspections and quarterly visual assessments, and a
description of corrective actions and/or AIM responses taken and the status of follow-up
repairs, maintenance activities, or new SCMs installations for the previous year. EPA added
the requirement to include AIM responses in the annual report form for the 2020 MSGP.
Appendix J Calculating Hardness in Receiving Waters for Hardness-Dependent Metals
Appendix J provides guidance to operators for determining their receiving water's hardness
level for hardness-dependent metals Penchmark monitoring. EPA did not propose any
changes this appendix.
Appendix K No Exposure Certification
Part 7.1 requires operators to use the NPDES eReporting Tool system, or "NeT" system, to
prepare and suPmit a No Exposure Certification. However, where operators request and
receive approval from their EPA Regional Office, they are authorized to use the paper NEC
form provided in Appendix K on a case-Py-case Pasis. The NEC form informs EPA that the
industrial operator has certified eligiPility for the no exposure permitting exemption. EPA
proposes to change the acronym for the No Exposure Certification from NOE to NEC.
Appendix L List of Tier 3. Tier 2. and Tier 2.5 Waters
Appendix L provides a list of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 waters to assist industrial operators in
determining eligiPility for coverage under Parts 1.1.6.3, and in complying with any
applicaPle requirements in Part 2.2. EPA did not propose any changes this appendix.
Appendix M Discharge Monitoring Report Form
Part 7.1 requires operators to use EPA's electronic DMR tool to prepare and suPmit their
Discharge Monitoring Reports. However, where an operator requests and receives a waiver
from their EPA Regional Office, the operator is authorized use the paper DMR form included
in Appendix M. The DMR form provides EPA with the information necessary to determine
compliance with monitoring requirements. EPA did not propose any changes this appendix.
Appendix N List of SIC ond NAICS Codes
For informational purposes only, Appendix N contains all the 1987 Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes that are regulated under stormwater regulations, and matches them
up with corresponding North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. NAICS
codes have Peen in use since they replaced the SIC codes in 1997. There is not a one-to-one
correspondence Petween the two systems, so a comprehensive list of regulated codes for Poth
systems was generated. Such a list of codes and how these codes fit into the MSGP's sectors
may Pe of interest to stakeholders. EPA added the following SIC codes that were mistakenly
omitted from pervious permits:
Page 102 of 103
-------
Proposed 2020 MSGP
Fact Sheet
• Sector P: 4221-4225 (Farm Product Warehousing and Storage; Refrigerated Warehousing
and Storage; and General Warehousing and Storage)
• Sector X: 2761 (Manifold Business Forms)
• Sector AA: 3442 (Metal Doors, Sash, Frames, Molding, and Trim Manufacturing).
Appendix O Summary of Permit Reports and Submittals
Appendix O provides a list of reporting and recordkeeping information that must Pe
generated and, in many cases, suPmitted to the EPA. EPA did not propose any changes
this appendix.
Appendix P List of CERCLA Sites
Appendix P provides a list of receiving waters associated with CERCLA sites to assist
industrial operators in determining eligiPility for coverage under Part 1.1.7. These receiving
waters have Peen identified Py the EPA Regional Office as the ones most likely to
experience contamination/recontamination due to toxic pollutants (particularly pollutants
for which the site Pecame associated with CERCLA clean ups) Peing
introduced/reintroduced into the receiving water. Currently, the eligiPility criterion in Part
1.1.7 (Part 1.1.4.10 in the 2015 MSGP) only applies to facilities in EPA Region 10. EPA requests
comment on whether this eligiPility criterion should Pe applied in all EPA Regions for facilities
that discharge to Federal CERCLA sites that may Pe of concern for recontamination from
industrial stormwater discharges. EPA is also interested in information from the puPlic that
would assist the Agency in identifying such sites. EPA also requests comment on requiring
such facilities to notify the EPA Regional Office a minimum of 30 days in advance of
suPmitting the Notice of Intent (NOI) form.
Appendix Q Sector-Specific Stormwater Control Measure Checklists
EPA created Appendix Q for the proposed 2020 MSGP sector-specific stormwater control
measure checklists. Implementing the controls in the checklists is required per proposed Part
5.2.2.2 for AIM Tier 2 responses.
EPA updated the taPles containing potential pollutant sources and corresponding
stormwater control measures (TaPle 2) in the sector-specific fact sheets availaPle at
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/industrial-stormwater-fact-sheet-series. EPA agreed in the
Settlement Agreement to update the factsheets to incorporate emerging stormwater
control measures that reflect Pest availaPle technology economically achievaPle (BAT)
and Pest conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), as revealed Py current industry
practice and as recommended Py the NRC Study. These updates are provided in
Appendix Q (Stormwater Control Measures) in the form of checklists. For the final permit,
EPA will consider comments received and replace the current TaPle 2 contained in each of
the sector-specific factsheets with the updated information in the checklists.
In updating the checklists, EPA reviewed potential pollutants from common industry
activities, pollutant sources, and practices that could reduce pollutant discharges. For
example, materials handling and storage was added as a pollutant source in the Sector G,
H, J, W, and AB factsheets. Factsheets that had any vehicle-related pollutant sources now
contain all three of the following pollutant sources and corresponding stormwater control
measures: Vehicle and Equipment Storage, Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance, and
Vehicle and Equipment Parking and Storage.
Page 103 of 103
------- |