Archived Publication
This information provided in this document is for reference. Please be aware that
the information in this document may be outdated or superseded by additional
information.
The Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Industrial Activity (2000 MSGP), issued in October 2000, expired at midnight on
October 30, 2005. A new permit, the 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit (2008
MSGP) was issued on September 29, 2008. Visit
www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp to view the final 2008 MSGP and
supporting documents.
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2006 Proposed Reissuance of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit
for Industrial Activities
Fact Sheet
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notice of Proposed NPDES general permit
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Summary
The Regional Administrators of EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are today proposing
a reissuance of EPA's NPDES Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). This general
permit, MSGP 2006, when finalized, will replace the MSGP 2000, which was issued on October
30, 2000 (65 FR 64746), and expired on October 30, 2005.
Public Comment
EPA is soliciting comment on the proposed MSGP 2006. Comments on any provision of
the permit, or comments on the fact sheet discussion are welcome. The comment period is open
for 45 days from publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. Comments may be submitted
to EPA in the following ways:
EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to
EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket and follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once in the system, select "search", and then key in Docket ID
No. OW-2005-0007. The system is an "anonymous access" system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment.
E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to ow-docket@epa.gov,
Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0007. In contrast to EPA's electronic public
docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an "anonymous access" system. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public
docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in
EPA's electronic public docket.
• Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to
the mailing address identified in Section I.B.2. These electronic submissions will be
accepted in Microsoft Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption.
By Mail. Send the original and three copies of your comments to: Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0007.
By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Reading Room,
Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20004, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0007. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified on the next page under
"Addresses."
page 2
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Addresses
The index to the administrative record for the proposed reissued MSGP is available at the
appropriate Regional Office or from the EPA Water Docket Office in Washington, DC. The
administrative record, including documents immediately referenced in this proposed reissuance
and applicable documents used to support the MSGP 2006 and the prior issuances of the MSGP
in 1995 and 2000, is stored at the EPA Water Docket Office at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Water Docket, MC4101T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. The records are available for
inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For
appointments to examine any portion of the administrative record, please call the Water Docket
Office at 202-566-2426. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Specific record
information can also be made available at the appropriate Regional Office upon request.
For Further Information
For further information on the proposed MSGP, contact the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. Contact information is available through the Internet on EPA's Office of Wastewater
Management website at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwatercontacts.
Supplemental Information
This fact sheet explains and provides additional details on the topics covered in the
MSGP. The actual language of the proposed MSGP 2006 appears after this fact sheet. Many
provisions of the proposed MSGP 2006 originated with previous permits. Therefore, additional
discussion on many MSGP requirements can be found in fact sheets for the 1995 and 2000
MSGPs.
page 3
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Contents
Summary 2
Public Comment 2
Addresses 3
For Further Information 3
Supplemental Information 3
Contents 4
1. Background 6
2. Changes from MSGP 2000 7
2.1 MSGP 2006 Part 1 7
2.2 MSGP 2006 Part 2 8
2.3 MSGP 2006 Part 3 9
2.4 MSGP 2006 Part 4 (Specific Requirements for Industrial Activity [MSGP 2000
Section 6, Sector-Specific Requirements for Industrial Activity]) 11
2.5 MSGP Part 5 (Permit Conditions Applicable to Specific States, Indian Country Lands,
and Territories [MSGP 2000 Part 13]) 15
2.6 MSGP 2006 Appendix A (Definitions and Acronyms, Part A.l [MSGP 2000 Part 12],
Part A.2 [MSGP 2000 Addendum G|) 16
2.7 MSGP 2006 Appendix B (Standard Permit Conditions [MSGP 2000 Part 9]) 17
2.8 MSGP 2006 Appendix C (Areas Covered [MSGP 2000 Part 1.1]) 19
2.9 MSGP 2006 Appendix D (Activities Covered [MSGP 2000 Part 1.2.1]) 19
2.10 MSGP 2006 Appendix E (Endangered Species Act Procedures [MSGP 2000 Part
1.2.3.6 and Addendum A]) 20
2.11 MSGP 2006 Appendix F (National Historic Properties Act Guidance [MSGP 2000
Part 1.2.3.7 and Addendum B]) 20
2.12 MSGP 2006 Appendix G (Notice of Intent Components) [MSGP 2000 Section 2 and
Addendum D] 21
2.13 MSGP 2006 Appendix H (Notice of Termination Components) [MSGP 2000 Section
11 and Addendum E] 22
3. Discussion of Notable Permit Provisions 24
3.1 Extension of Administrative Continuance for Existing Dischargers 24
3.2 Permit Compliance 24
3.3 Discharge Authorization Waiting Periods 24
3.4 Requirement for Availability of SWPPP 25
3.5 Water Quality Standards 26
3.6 Water Quality Impaired and Water Quality Limited Receiving Waters 30
3.7 Benchmark Monitoring 32
3.8 Inactive and Unstaffed Sites 39
3.9 Representative Outfalls 40
3.10 Reduced Benchmark Monitoring for Performance Track Facilities 40
3.11 Numeric Effluent Limitations 41
page 4
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3.12 Quarterly Visual Monitoring 42
3.13 Monitoring Required by a State or Tribe 43
3.14 Collection and Analysis of Samples 44
3.15 Storm Event Data 44
3.16 Adverse Weather Conditions 44
3.17 National Historic Preservation Act 44
3.18 Endangered Species Act 46
3.19 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements 49
3.20 Pollution Prevention Team 49
3.21 Site Description and Receiving Waters and Wetlands 49
3.22 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources 50
3.23 Significant Spills and Leaks 51
3.24 Elimination of Unauthorized Discharges 51
3.25 Monitoring Data 52
3.26 Selection and Implementation of Stormwater Controls 52
3.27 Required Stormwater Controls 53
3.28 Controls for Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges 55
3.29 Special Requirements for Discharges Associated with Specific Industrial Activity... 55
3.30 Mercury Switch Removal 56
3.31 State or Tribal Requirements 56
3.32 Maintenance 56
3.33 Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation 56
3.34 Signature 57
3.35 Purpose of Corrective Action Schedules 57
3.36 Reporting 58
4. Eligible Discharges 59
4.1 Areas Covered 59
4.2 Industrial Sectors Covered 59
5. Cost Estimates 65
5.1 Analytical Benchmark Monitoring 65
5.2 Reporting 65
6. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866) 67
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 68
8. Paperwork Reduction Act 69
9. Impact on Small Business 70
page 5
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
1. Background
Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) added section 402(p) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), which directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a
phased approach to regulate stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. EPA published a final regulation on the first phase on
this program on November 16, 1990, establishing permit application requirements for
"stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity." EPA defined the term "stormwater
discharge associated with industrial activity" in a comprehensive manner to cover a wide variety
of facilities.
The Regional Administrators of EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are today proposing
to reissue EPA's NPDES Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). The MSGP
currently authorizes stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity for most areas of
the United States that are not authorized to administer the NPDES permit program. The initial
MSGP was issued on September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50804), and amended on February 9, 1996 (61
FR 5248), February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6412), September 24, 1996 (61 FR 50020), August 7, 1998
(63 FR 42534), and September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52430). The current MSGP was issued on
October 30, 2000 (65 FR 64746), after being proposed on March 30, 2000 (65 FR 17010). MSGP
2000 was subsequently corrected on January 9, 2001 (66 FR 1675-1678) and March 23, 2001 (66
FR 16233-16237). On April 16, 2001 (66 FR 19483-19485) EPA re-issued the permit, as
corrected, for facilities in certain areas of Regions 8 and 10.
page 6
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
2. Changes from MSGP 2000
The organization of today's proposed MSGP has been changed substantially from the
MSGP 2000. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of today's proposed MSGP 2006 contain provisions common to all
discharges. Part 4 details the industrial sector-specific requirements, and Part 5 details the State-
and Tribe-specific requirements. The permit also includes appendices for: definitions and
acronyms (Appendix A); standard permit conditions (Appendix B); areas covered (Appendix C);
activities covered (Appendix D); Endangered Species Act procedures (Appendix E); National
Historical Places Act procedures (Appendix F); Notice of Intent requirements and form
(Appendix G); and Notice of Termination (NOT) (Appendix H). These appendices were
extracted from the general permit body as one-time per permit term references for permitted
facilities, unless substantial changes in industrial activities are undertaken during the active
permit term. The intent of the reorganization was to simplify the process of determining
requirements for the permitted facilities by placing the core requirements into the main permit
body.
A detailed list of proposed changes from MSGP 2000 is included below. A discussion of
notable differences is provided in Chapter 3 of this Fact Sheet.
2.1 MSGP 2006 Part 1
1. Simplified co-located activity discussion (Part 1.2.1)
2. Makes a clearer distinction between eligibility requirements (Part 1.2) and permit
compliance (Part 1.3).
3. Added description that generic pH range limits not included to address a known
exceedance covered under an individual permit or alternative general permit could be
covered under the MSGP (Part 1.2.4.3 [MSGP 2000 Parts 1.2.3.3.2 and 1.2.3.3.2.1])
4. Added description that discharges previously covered by an individual permit or
alternative general permit where the permittee fails to implement BMPs that provide
equal or better pollution prevention or pollutant removal required by the previous permit
are not authorized (Part 1.2.4.3 [MSGP 2000 Parts 1.2.3.3.2 and 1.2.3.3.2.2])
5. Clarified that facility discharges are not authorized when a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) specifically articulates a Wasteload Allocation (WLA) requiring more stringent
controls than can be achieved under MSGP 2006, or when a TMDL applies a WLA of
zero (0) to the facility's discharge (Part 1.2.4.4)
6. Added specific eligibility provisions in lieu of an ambiguous eligibility requirement for
new discharges to impaired waters without TMDLs (Part 1.2.4.9)
7. Deleted information on initiating a new source review and on NEPA requirements after
state assumption of the MSGP ([MSGP 2000 Parts 1.2.4.2, 1.2.4.3]
page 7
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
8. Revised and clarified water quality provisions and discharge standards: Numeric Effluent
Limitations (Part 1.4.1), Benchmarks (Part 1.4.2), and Water Quality Standards
(Part 1.4.3)
9. Clarified what a facility must do when there is a determination that a facility's discharge
does not comply with applicable water quality standards (Part 1.4.3)
10. Added information on coverage under the MSGP for discharges of pollutants of concern
to waters for which there is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); emphasized
verification of compliance with a wasteload allocation (WLA) through monitoring (Part
1.4.4.1)
11. Added information on coverage under the MSGP for discharges to an impaired water
without an established TMDL (Part 1.4.4.2)
12. Clarified that NOIs must be submitted in accordance with the deadlines specified in Table
1-2 of the permit (Part 1.5.1) and added Table 1-2
13. Changed authorization to discharge from 2 days to 30 days after EPA posts a facility's
complete NOI on the e-NOI website (Part 1.5.2)
14. Described the exact time of termination and requirement for still complying with the
conditions of the permit until an NOT is submitted (Part 1.6.1)
2.2 MSGP 2006 Part 2
1. Added SWPPP site description requirements of impervious surface estimate and
precipitation information (Part 2.1.2)
2. Added description of the locations of surface water bodies requirements to be included in
the site description (Part 2.1.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.2.2.3.3])
3. Included a requirement to determine relevant water quality standards, TMDLs and
impaired water status for receiving waters (Parts 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2)
4. Emphasized that facilities are responsible to include a description of location and source
of run-on from adjacent property, and to evaluate how those sources impact the quality of
discharges from the facility (Part 2.1.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.2.2.3.10])
5. Added requirement that if a facility discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4), the facility must identify the operator of that MS4 and the receiving water
body (Part 2.1.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.2.3])
6. Changed notification deadline from 180 days to 14 days when a facility is unable to
provide the certification required for the elimination of unauthorized discharges (Part
2.1.4.4 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.4.1.3])
7. Added salt storage as a category under potential pollutant sources (Part 2.1.4.6)
8. Updated information to consider when selecting BMPs (Part 2.1.5 [MSGP 2000 Parts
4.2.7.1.1 through 4.2.7.1.2])
page 8
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
9. Added a reference to the Guidance Manual for Conditional Exclusion from Stormwater
Permitting Based on "No Exposure " of Industrial Activities to Stormwater (Part 2.1.5.2
[MSGP 2000 Part 4.2.7.2.1.2])
10. Clarified that regular preventive maintenance measures are distinct from specific BMP
improvement needs discovered during inspections or as a result of monitoring (Part
2.1.5.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.2.7.2.1.3])
11. Added examples of preventive measures for spills (Part 2.1.5.4)
12. Clarified spill response procedures and added new requirement that employees who may
cause, detect or respond to a spill or leak must be trained in these procedures and have
necessary spill response equipment available. Also, if possible, one of these individuals
should be a member of the facility's Pollution Prevention Team. Added requirement for
including in the SWPPP contact information for individuals and agencies that must be
notified in the event of a spill (Part 2.1.5.4 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.2.7.2.1.4])
13. Added requirement for documenting in the SWPPP all training sessions and the
employees who received the training (Part 2.1.5.6 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.2.7.2.1.6])
14. Deleted outdated reference to the User's Guide to the MSGP-2000 (MSGP 2000 Part
4.2.7.2.2.2)
15. Added that if repairs to existing BMPs that are not operating effectively cannot be
performed prior to the next anticipated rainfall, that back-up measures must be in place,
and justification for the extended repair schedule be included in the SWPPP (Part 2.2
[MSGP 2000 Part 4.3])
16. Changed deadline for completion of BMP modification or addition to be within 60 days
instead of 12 weeks after discovery of any deficiency or discharge standard exceedance.
Added an opportunity to have EPA approve an extended deadline when appropriate.
(Parts 2.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.9.3])
17. Deleted requirement of including a copy of the permit in the facility's SWPPP (MSGP
2000 Part 4.7)
18. Clarified SWPPP availability requirements (Part 2.4 [MSGP 2000 Part 8.2])
2.3 MSGP 2006 Part 3
1. Defined "qualified personnel" (Part 3.1.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.2.7.2.1.5])
2. Clarified, as part of the comprehensive site compliance evaluation, that outfall or
discharge location inspections include looking for evidence of pollutants discharging to
surface waters at facility outfall(s) and the condition of and around the outfall, including
flow dissipation measures to prevent scouring (Part 3.1.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 4.9.2])
3. Added modifications to quarterly benchmark monitoring scheduling, based on
precipitation patterns (Part 3.2.2.1)
4. Moved initiation of quarterly benchmark monitoring from the 2nd year of permit coverage
to the 1st year of permit coverage (Part 3.2.2.1 [MSGP 2000 5.1.2.1])
page 9
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
5. Modified the benchmark monitoring requirements such that no additional benchmark
monitoring is required (for a given pollutant) when, following 4 quarters of monitoring,
the average of the 4 quarterly samples does not exceed the benchmark (Part 3.2.2.3
[MSGP 2000 5.1.2.2])
6. In MSGP 2000 an additional 4 quarters of benchmark monitoring was required in year 4
when the average of the year 2 monitoring exceeded the benchmark. In the proposed
MSGP 2006 an additional 4 quarters of monitoring commences in the 2nd year of permit
coverage if the average of the 1st year monitoring exceeds the benchmark, if the operator
determines that modifications to the SWPPP are necessary, and once corrective actions
have been implemented (Part 3.2.2.4 [MSGP 2000 5.1.2.1])
7. Clarified the provision to review the SWPPP after the average of the 4 monitoring values
exceeds the benchmark, and determine if improvements to the SWPPP and BMPs are
needed. Added a provision to make a determination that modifications are not needed, in
which case the justification must be included in the SWPPP, and monitoring may be
reduced to once per year. When modifications are needed, corrective actions must be
taken and an additional 4 quarter of monitoring undertaken (Part 3.2.2.4)
8. Extended the benchmark monitoring waiver to any inactive and unstaffed site, not just
those remote facilities where monitoring is not feasible, but added the prerequisite that no
industrial materials or activities be exposed to stormwater (Part 3.2.2.5 [MSGP 2000 Part
5.1.2.3])
9. Added a requirement for monitoring applicable pollutants of concern in discharges to
impaired waters (Part 3.2.5)
10. Updated requirement of storm event total volume data to be reported in liters instead of
gallons (Part 3.2.6.2 [MSGP Part 5.2.3])
11. Added a specific section to clarify the requirement to take immediate corrective action
when there is an exceedance of an effluent limitation, a water quality standard, or other
limitation stipulated in Part 5; when inspections or evaluations identify inadequacies in
stormwater controls, or; when the SWPPP review following a benchmark exceedance
(average of 4 monitoring events) reveals inadequacies (Part 3.3)
12. Deleted additional reporting for dischargers to a large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer system (MSGP 2000 Part 7.2)
13. Added follow-up monitoring requirements for pollutants with effluent limitation
guidelines, coalpile runoff and wasteload allocations (pollutants for which only annual
monitoring is otherwise required) when results indicate discharge exceeds the numeric
effluent limitation, or when the discharge has been found to cause or contribute to a water
quality standard exceedance, to verify that BMPs have been adequately modified to
protect water quality (Part 3.4)
14. Added requirements for reporting results of follow-up monitoring exceedances (Part 3.4)
15. Added requirement for facilities' administrative records to accurately reflect a traceable
historical record of BMP installation, maintenance, monitoring results, and revision of
practices and data collected to support continued maintenance of those practices or their
page 10
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
abandonment in lieu of more effective control mechanisms (Part 3.6 [MSGP 2000
Part 8.1])
16. Updated information for Region 4 indicating that coverage is not available under this
permit (Part 3.7.4 [MSGP 2000 Part 8.3.4])
17. Updated information for Region 5 indicating that coverage will be available under this
permit (Part 3.7.5 [MSGP 2000 Part 8.3.5])
18. Updated information for Region 6 indicating that coverage is not available under this
permit for Arkansas (Part 3.7.6 [MSGP 2000 Part 8.3.6])
19. Updated information for Region 8 indicating that coverage is not available under this
permit (Part 3.7.8 [MSGP 2000 Part 8.3.4])
20. Updated Region 10 states to include Alaska (Part 3.7.10 [MSGP 2000 Part 8.3.10])
2.4 MSGP 2006 Part 4 (Specific Requirements for Industrial Activity [MSGP 2000
Section 6, Sector-Specific Requirements for Industrial Activity])
All information previously included in Section 6, "Sector-Specific Requirements for
Industrial Activity," is now in Part 4, "Specific Requirements for Industrial Activity." The
content of this section has also been updated, as detailed below.
1. The Benchmark Monitoring Requirement for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) was added to
each Sector where it was not otherwise included in the MSGP 2000. It should be noted
that monitoring for this parameter is required for the sectors and subsectors that did not
have any benchmark monitoring requirements in the MSGP 2000 in addition to those
sectors and subsectors that did have benchmark monitoring requirements in the MSGP
2000. These sectors and subsectors that previously did not have benchmark monitoring
requirements are listed below.
I. Oil and Gas Extraction and Refining
P. Land Transportation and Warehousing
R. Ship and Boat Building and Repairing Yards
T. Treatment Works
V. Textile Mills, Apparel, and Other Fabric Product Manufacturing; Leather and
Leather Products
W. Furniture and Fixtures
X. Printing and Publishing
Y. Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Industries
page 11
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Z. Leather Tanning and Finishing
AB. Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial Machinery
AC. Electronic, Electrical, Photographic, and Optical Goods
AD. Non-classified Facilities
2. New benchmarks for chromium and phenols were added to the wood preserving
(SIC 2491) subsector of sector A, timber products.
3. New benchmarks for ammonia, lead, nickel, zinc and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen were added
to sector I, oil and gas extraction and refining.
4. A new benchmark for lead was added to the rubber manufacturing subsectors of sector Y,
rubber, miscellaneous plastic products, and miscellaneous manufacturing industries: Tires
and Inner Tubes; Rubber Footwear; Gaskets, Packing and Sealing Devices, and Rubber
Hoses and Belting; and Fabricated Rubber Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
(SIC 3011-3069, rubber manufacturing only).
5. New benchmarks for copper and lead were added to the electronic and electrical
equipment and components except computers (SIC 3612-3699) subsector of sector AC,
electronic, electrical, photographic, and optical goods.
6. Updated description of India ink and water colors (Part 4.C.2.7 [MSGP 2000
Part 6.C.2.7)
7. Changed inspection frequency to monthly (Part 4.F.3.4 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.F.3.4])
8. Facility information updated (Part 4.G.1 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.1])
9. Added information on covered discharges from exploration and development of metal
mining and/or ore dressing facilities (Part 4.G.1.3)
10. Added information on covered discharges from facilities at mining sites and undergoing
reclamation (Part 4.G. 1.4)
11. Added information on reclamation of mining sites (Part 4.G.2.3)
12. Included discussion of contaminated seeps and spring discharging from waste rock dumps
(Part 4.G.3.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.3.2])
13. Changed text from "Exploration and Construction Phase" to "Exploration and
Development Phase" (Part 4.G.4.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.4.2])
14. Added text on final stabilization (Part 4.G.4.8)
15. Simplified text on clearing, grading, and excavation activities (Part 4.G.5 [MSGP 2000
Part 6.G.5])
16. Deleted text describing activities disturbing 5 or more acres of earth ([MSGP 2000
Part 6.G.5.1]) and on cessation or earth-disturbing activities ([MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.5.2])
17. Added text on management practices for clearing, grading, and excavation activities
(Part 4.G.5.1), requirements for inspection of clearing, grading, and excavation activities
page 12
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
(4.G.5.2), maintenance of controls for clearing, grading, and excavation activities
(4.G.5.3), and requirements for cessation of clearing, grading, and excavation activities
(4.G.5.4)
18. Clarified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements (Part 4.G.6
[MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.6])
19. Removed requirement of including acreage estimates under nature of industrial activities
(Part 4.G.6.1 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.6.1.1])
20. Site map requirements clarified to include locations of all permitted discharges covered
under an individual NPDES permit, outdoor equipment storage, materials handling areas,
outdoor storage, outdoor chemicals, and reclaimed areas (Part 4.G.6.2 [MSGP 2000
Part 6.G.6.1.2])
21. Changed site inspection requirements to quarterly inspections unless adverse weather
conditions make the site inaccessible and monthly inspections of outstanding waters or
waters which are impaired for parameters listed in Table G-2 (Part 4.G.6.4 [MSGP 2000
Part 6.G.6.1.4])
22. Added documentation requirement of employee training requirement in SWPPP
(Part 4.G.6.5 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.6.1.5])
23. Deleted requirement of explaining why one or more of the BMPs listed are not
appropriate for a particular facility (Part 4.G.6.6 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.6.1.6])
24. Updated treatment of stormwater runoff requirements (Part 4.G.6.6.5 [MSGP 2000
Part 6.G.6.1.6.5])
25. Clarified that all outfalls covered under the MSGP must be tested or evaluated (Part
4.G.6.6.6 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.6.1.6.6])
26. Deleted SWPPP requirements for inactive metal mining facilities ([MSGP 2000
Part 6.G.6.2])
27. Title updated to include inactive sites and sites undergoing reclamation; updated
monitoring frequency requirements to include analytic monitoring quarterly in the first
year of coverage for the parameters listed in Table G-2 and G-3; samples must be
collected as specified (Part 4.G.7.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.7.2])
28. Monitoring of discharges from waste rock and overburden piles frequency changed from
twice per year for the permit term to quarterly in the first year of coverage (Part 4.G.7.3
[MSGP 2000 Part 6.G.7.2.1])
29. Added termination of permit coverage requirements (Part 4.G.8)
30. Added additional discussion on stormwater discharges subject to effluent limitation
guidelines (Part 4.1.3.1 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.1.3.1.7])
31. Changed "Good Housekeeping Measures" to "Contact with Waste Water Pollutants at
Exploration and Production Facilities" and added descriptive text (Part 4.1.4.5 [MSGP
2000 Part 6.1.4.5])
page 13
-------
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Added covered discharges from inactive facilities (Part 4. J. 1.1), covered discharges from
active and temporarily inactive facilities (Part 4. J. 1.2), covered discharges from
exploration and development of metal mining facilities (Part 4. J. 1.3), covered discharges
from facilities at mining sites and undergoing reclamation (Part 4. J. 1.4), prohibition of
stormwater discharges (Part 4.J.3.1), prohibition of non-stormwater discharges (Part
4.J.3.2), and final stabilization (Part 4.J.4.8)
Added reclamation of mining sites under "Industrial Activities covered by Sector J" (Part
J.2.3)
Simplified clearing, grading, and excavation activities (Part 4.J.5 [MSGP 2000 Part
6.J.5])
Deleted text on obtaining coverage under the Construction General Permit ([MSGP 2000
Part 6. J.5.1]) and cessation of exploration and construction activities ([MSGP 2000
Part 6.J.5.2])
Added management practices for clearing, grading, and excavation activities
(Part 4. J.5.1), requirements for inspection of clearing, grading, and excavation activities
(Part 4. J.5.2), maintenance of controls for clearing, grading, and excavation activities
(Part 4. J.5.3), and requirements for cessation of clearing, grading, and excavation
activities (Part 4.J.5.4)
Clarified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements (Part 4. J.6
[MSGP 2000 Part 6. J.6])
Deleted inspection requirements ([MSGP 2000 Part 6. J.6.1])
Added nature of industrial activities (Part 4. J.6.1), site map (Part 4. J.6.2), potential
pollutant sources (Part 4. J.6.3), site inspections (Part 4. J.6.4), employee training
(Part 4.J.6.5), stormwater controls (Part 4.J.6.6)
Simplified limitations on coverage (Part 4.K.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.K.3]) and moved
some text to Part 4.K.3.2
Updated inspection frequency to monthly and added information to include inspection of
areas where hazardous materials, including mercury switches, and general automotive
fluids are stored (Part 4.M.3.4 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.M.3.4])
Updated employee training to include proper handling of mercury-containing contact
switches (Part 4.M.3.5 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.M.3.5])
Added suggestion for mercury spill kits for spills from storage of mercury switches as a
good housekeeping measure for scrap and waste recycling facilities as part of the Scrap
and Waste Material Stockpiles and Storage (Covered or Indoor Storage) (Part N.4.2.4
[MSGP 2000 Part N.4.2.4])
Added suggestion for using a mercury spill kit for any release of mercury from switches,
anti-lock brake systems, and switch storage areas (PartN.4.2.7 [MSGP 2000
PartN.4.2.7])
page 14
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
45. Added suggestion for mercury spill kit and emphasis on not vacuuming spilled or leaking
mercury to BMP options for waste recycling facilities as part of the Waste Material
Storage (Indoor) (PartN.4.3.1 [MSGP 2000 PartN.4.3.1])
46. Changed "Quarterly Inspections" to "Inspections" for consistency, changed the frequency
of inspections to monthly, and changed "Quarterly Inspection Program" to "Inspections"
(Part 4.N.4.3.4 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.N.4.2.8])
47. Added additional descriptive text (Part 4.P. 1 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.P. 1])
48. Added detailed description of facilities covered (Part 4.P.2 [MSGP 2000 Parts 6.P.2,
6.P.2.1, and 6.P.2.2
49. Added special coverage conditions (Part 4.P.3)
50. Updated text to include illicit plumbing connections between shop floor drains and the
stormwater conveyance system(s) (Part 4.P.4.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.P.3.2])
51. Added requirement for SWPPP to describe specific good housekeeping control measures
used in each of the facility areas (Part 4.P.4.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.P.3.3])
52. Added description of types of facilities (Part S.l [MSGP 2000 Part 6.S.1])
53. Examples added (Part 4.S.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.S.2])
54. Deicing season requirements added (Part 4.S.4.2.1)
55. Added requirement that SWPPP must describe the specific good housekeeping control
measures used in each of the facility areas (Part 4.S.4.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.S.5.3])
56. Requirement added for describing the controls used for collecting or containing
contaminated melt water from collection areas used for disposal of contaminated snow
(Part 4.S.4.3.7 [MSGP 2000 Part 6.S.5.3])
57. Added vehicle and equipment washwater requirements (Part 4. S.4.6)
58. Specified that the frequency of inspection is monthly (Part 4.U.4.3 [MSGP 2000 Part
6.U.4.3])
59. Added electrical and electronic equipment and components (Part 4.AC.2.5)
60. Simplified text under covered stormwater discharges (Part 4. AD. 1 [MSGP 2000
Part 6.AD. 1]) and under eligibility for permit coverage (Part 4. AD. 1.1 [MSGP 2000
Part 6.AD. 1.1])
2.5 MSGP Part 5 (Permit Conditions Applicable to Specific States, Indian Country Lands, and
Territories [MSGP 2000 Part 13])
Permit conditions applicable to specific States, Indian Country Lands, and Territories will
be provided by those entities prior to finalization of this permit as their Clean Water Act § 401
certifications.
page 15
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
2.6 MSGP 2006 Appendix A (Definitions and Acronyms, Part A.l [MSGP 2000 Part 12], Part
A.2 [MSGP 2000 Addendum G])
A. 1 - Several definitions were deleted, some were added, and some were changed (see
below). In addition overall minor changes were made, including replacing "means" with a
hyphen and removing the quotation marks around the word defined.
The following definitions were deleted:
• Commencement of construction
. CWA
Discharge of stormwater associated with construction activity
Discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity
Flow-weighted composite sample
Large and medium municipal storm sewer systems
. NOI
. NOT
The following definitions were added:
Co-located industrial activities
Control measure
Discharge of a pollutant
New discharger
New source
Person
Primary industrial activity
Significant materials
The definitions for industrial activity and industrial stormwater were slightly revised to
remove extraneous language.
The definition for municipal storm sewer system was completely revised.
The definition for pollutant was revised to include incinerator residue, filter backwash,
munitions, and agricultural waste discharged into water
Stormwater associated with industrial activity was completely revised and now is
stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity
A.2 - Several abbreviations and acronyms were deleted and some were added (see below).
page 16
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
The following abbreviations and acronyms were deleted:
. CNMI
. DEQ
. GPCA
. LOEL
. MRF
. MSWLF
. PPED
. SWQB
The following abbreviation and acronyms were added:
. BAT
. BOD5
. COD
2.7 MSGP 2006 Appendix B (Standard Permit Conditions [MSGP 2000 Part 9])
Added text describing the standard permit conditions in Appendix B (Appendix B
[MSGP 2000 Part 9]
Clarified penalties for a second or subsequent conviction for a negligent violation
(Part B. 1 .B. 1.1.1 [MSGP 2000 Part 9.1.2.1.1])
Clarified penalties for a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing violation
(Part B. 1 .B. 1.1.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 9.1.2.1.2])
Clarified penalties for a second or subsequent conviction for knowing endangerment
(Part B. 1 .B. 1.1.3 [MSGP 2000 Part 9.1.2.1.3])
False statement information simplified to state that any person who falsifies, tampers
with, or knowing renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained
under the act will upon conviction be punished by various penalties; clarified penalties for any
person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or
other document submitted or required to be maintained under the permit (Part B. 1 .B. 1.1.4, Part
B.10.E [MSGP 2000 Part 9.1.2.1.4])
Maximum penalty amount updated for civil penalties to $32,500 per day for each
violation. This is standard for NPDES program penalties, and not specific to MSGP. EPA is
required to adjust civil and administrative penalties in accordance with the Civil Monetary
Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule (61 FR 252, December 31, 1996, pp. 69359-69366, as
page 17
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
corrected in 62 FR 54, March 20, 1997, pp. 13514-13517) as mandated by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 for inflation on a periodic basis. The Agency is required to review its
penalties at least once every 4 years and to adjust them as necessary for inflation according to a
specified formula. Additional information is available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2004 register&docid=frl3fe04-10.pdf (Part B.1.B.2 [MSGP 2000
Part 9.1.2.2])
Maximum Class I penalty amount updated to $32,500 per day for each violation
(Part B.I B.3.3.1 [MSGP 2000 Part 9.1.2.3.1])
Maximum Class II penalty supporting information updated (Part B.l.B.3.3.2 [MSGP
2000 Part 9.1.2.3.2])
Continuation of expired permit information rearranged and simplified under a heading of
"duty to reapply" (Part B.2 [MSGP 2000 Part 9.2])
Duty to mitigate updated to include sludge use or disposal (Part B.4 [MSGP 2000
Part 9.4])
Emphasis on signing SWPPPs added and text rearranged (Parts B. 11 .B, B. 11 .B. 1,
B.11.B.2 [MSGP 2000 Parts 9.7.2, 9.7.2.1, 9.7.2.2, 9.7.2.3])
Deleted information on severability ([MSGP 2000 Part 9.11]), Director's notification
([MSGP 2000 Part 9.12.4]), and state/tribal environmental laws ([MSGP 2000 Part 9.13])
Inspection and entry information updated to allow only EPA or an authorized
representative under this permit to inspect (Part B.9 [MSGP 2000 Part 9.15])
Clarified that inspection practices or operations regulated or required under this permit
are to be inspected at reasonable times (Part B.9.C [MSGP 2000 Part 9.15.3])
Added text allowing EPA or an authorized representative to sample or monitor any
substances or parameters at any location for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or
otherwise authorized under the Clean Water Act at reasonable times (Part B.9.D)
Clarified that samples and measurements must be representative of the volume and nature
of the monitored activity (Part B. 10. A [MSGP 2000 Part 9.16.1])
Records retention requirements updated to include all calibration and maintenance
records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies
of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for
this permit; requirements updated so that permittees must submit records to the Director upon
request (Part B.10.B, B.8 [MSGP 2000 Parts 9.16.2, 9.16.2.1])
Deleted retention of SWPPP information ([MSGP 2000 Part 9.16.2.2])
page 18
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Record contents requirements updated so that the individual(s) who performed the
sampling instead of sampler's initials must be included (Parts B.10.C.2, B.10.C.4 [MSGP 2000
Parts 9.16.3.2, 9.16.3.5]); deleted requirement for time(s) analyses were initiated ([MSGP 2000
Part 9.16.3.4])
Sludge use or disposal information added to monitoring results (Part B. 10.D
[MSGP 2000 Part 9.16.4])
Permit action information updated to include termination (Part B.6 [MSGP 2000
Part 9.17])
Transfer of permit coverage information simplified (Part B. 12.C [MSGP 2000 Part 11.1])
Deleted Notice of Termination information on NPDES permit number ([MSGP 2000
Part 11.2.1]), name and address ([MSGP 2000 Part 11.2.3]), name and street address ([MSGP
2000 Part 11.2.4]), latitude and longitude ([MSGP 2000 Part 11.2.5]), certification ([MSGP 2000
Part 11.2.6]), addresses ([MSGP 2000 Part 11.3]), and facilities eligible for "No Exposure"
exemption ([MSGP 2000 Part 11.4])
Added detailed reporting requirements for planned changes (Part B. 12. A), anticipated
noncompliance (PartB.12.B), monitoring reports (PartB.12.D), compliance schedules
(Part B.12.E), twenty-four hour reporting (Part B.12.F), and other noncompliance (Part B.12.G)
Added bypass definitions (Part B.13.A.1), bypasses not exceeding limitations (Part
B.13.B), notice ofbypasses (PartB.13.C), and prohibited bypasses (PartB.13.D)
Added upset definition (Part B. 14. A), effect of an upset (Part B. 14.B), conditions
necessary for a demonstration of an upset (Part B. 14.C), and burden of proof (Part B. 14.D)
2.8 MSGP 2006 Appendix C (Areas Covered [MSGP 2000 Part 1.1])
Updated information for Region 4 indicating that coverage is not available under this
permit (Part C.4 [MSGP 2000 Part 1.1.4]
Updated information for Region 5 indicating that coverage will be available under this
permit (Part C.5 [MSGP 2000 Part 1.1.5])
Updated information for Region 8 indicating that coverage is not available under this
permit (Part C.8 [MSGP 2000 Part 1.1.8]
Updated Region 10 states to include Alaska (Part C.10 [MSGP 2000 Part 1.1.10])
2.9 MSGP 2006 Appendix D (Activities Covered [MSGP 2000 Part 1.2.1])
Clarified Sector K facilities to include those that are operating under interim status or a
permit under subtitle C of RCRA
page 19
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Clarified Sector L facilities as those facilities that receive or have received any industrial
wastes including those that are subject to regulation under subtitle D of RCRA
Clarified Sector O facilities to include coal handling sites
Clarified Sector T facilities and described what facilities are not included such as farm
lands and domestic gardens used for sludge management where sludge is beneficially reused and
which are not physically located within the confines of the facility
Updated SIC codes for measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments; photographic
and optical goods, watches and clocks Subsector of Sector AC from 3812 to 3812 - 3873.
2.10 MSGP 2006 Appendix E (Endangered Species Act Procedures [MSGP 2000 Part 1.2.3.6
and Addendum A])
A new eligibility criterion for operators to consider that involves their independent
coordination with the FWS or NMFS has been added. This coordination must address the effects
of the operator's stormwater discharges on endangered species or critical habitat and must
include a written statement from the Services that there will be no adverse effects on species or
habitat.
2.11 MSGP 2006 Appendix F (National Historic Properties Act Guidance [MSGP 2000
Part 1.2.3.7 and Addendum B])
For today's MSGP 2006 reissuance, EPA has proposed the following modifications:
Criterion A was revised to specify that the discharger is certifying that its stormwater
discharges and allowable non-stormwater discharges "do not have the potential to cause effects"
to historic properties as specified in the National Historic Preservation Act (See 36 CFR
800.3(a)(1)). The previous language required that the discharger certify that its discharge or
discharge-related activities "do not affect" historic properties. See Section 1.2.4.7. Further
discussion is provided in Appendix F.
Another option (Criterion B) was added. You are eligible for coverage if your discharge-
related activities (i.e., construction and/or installation of stormwater BMPs that involve
subsurface disturbance) will not affect historic properties. This criterion is selected only if you
have documented evidence that either no historic properties are present on your site or prior
disturbance precluded the existence of historic properties. See Section 1.2.4.7. Further discussion
is provided in Appendix F.
Criterion C (previously called Criterion B in the 2000 MSGP) was revised to require
written agreements only where the discharge or discharge-related activities have the "potential to
cause effects" to historic properties. This criterion now includes a reference to Tribal
representatives because MSGP coverage extends to Tribal lands and Tribal representatives play a
page 20
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
central role in the protection of historic resources. See Section 1.2.4.7. Further discussion is
provided in Appendix F.
A fourth option (Criterion D) for obtaining permit coverage has been added. Permit
coverage is granted if you have contacted the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer, or other tribal representative in writing regarding your potential to cause
effects to an historic property, and you did not receive a response within 30 days. See Section
1.2.4.7. Further discussion is provided in Appendix F.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) form language has been modified to include the four criteria
for permit coverage so that operators must identify which of the four options they are using to
ensure eligibility for permit coverage under the MSGP.
The NHPA guidance has also been modified to reflect the above changes and appears in
Appendix F rather than Addendum B.
2.12 MSGP 2006 Appendix G (Notice of Intent Components) [MSGP 2000 Section 2 and
Addendum D]
Changes to the new form
• The new form asks simply for a Permit Number. The old form asked for a Permit
Selection and a New Permit Number.
Under Facility Operator Information
• An IRS employer Information Number is now required.
An e-mail address now required.
A Fax number (optional) has been added
Under Facility/Site Information
The phrase "This facility is ~ New ~ Existing If your facility is existing and you had
coverage under the MSGP 2000, provide the Tracking Number" has been added.
The "county" entry on the old permit has been expended in the new permit to "county
or similar government subdivision."
Latitude must now be specified in either 1. degrees, minutes, seconds; 2. degrees,
minutes and decimals; or 3. decimal.
Longitude must now be specified in 1. degrees, minutes, seconds; 2. degrees, minutes
and decimals; or 3. decimal.
Added "Is this facility federal? ~ Yes ~ No."
Added that if the facility was located on Indian Country lands, provide the "name of
reservation, or if not part of a reservation, put "Not Applicable."
page 21
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Applicants are now asked to "List the code that best represents your Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) Code(s) for your industrial activity."
• The subsection "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Contact Information and
Location" has been added. This section asks for "Name," "Location Address (street,
city, state, zip code and URL address of stormwater prevention plan (if applicable)"
• Under the new Endangered Species Act Eligibility subsection, applicants must select
the criterion that they satisfied their Endangered Species Act obligations under and
are directed to Appendix E of the MSGP. In the old form, they were directed to
Addendum A of the MSGP and did not have to select the criterion.
In the same section, applicants must now choose from five criteria - A, B, C, D, E
and F - to prove they've satisfied their ESA obligations.
If applicants choose criterion F, they must "provide [the] permit tracking number of
the operator under which you are certifying eligibility."
• A new subsection National Historic Preservation Act Eligibility has been added.
Applicants must select the criterion that they satisfied their National Historic
Preservation Act obligations under and are directed to "Appendix F of the MSGP" for
instructions on these permit criteria. In the old form, they were directed to Addendum
B of the MSGP and did not have to select the criterion.
• Under subsection Certifier Name and Title, applicants are now asked for their "Title."
Deletions from the old form
The subsection "Permit Selection" has been eliminated.
Removed "Permit Applicant: ~ Federal ~ State ~ Tribal ~ Private ~ Other public
entity."
The 30 boxes that represented applicable sectors of industrial activity (Sector A
though AD) have been replaced in the new form by a simplified 2-character data entry
point.
2.13 MSGP 2006 Appendix H (Notice of Termination Components) [MSGP 2000 Section 11
and Addendum E]
Changes to the new form
• An "NPDES Permit Tracking Number" is now required. The old form asked for an
NPDES Stormwater General Permit Number.
Applicants are now given four choices to explain their reasons for terminating
coverage: "A. You transferred operational control to another operator. B. You
terminated facility operations. C. You obtained coverage under an alternative NPDES
permit. D. You qualified for a No Exposure Exemption. If you answered yes to "D,"
you must fill out the No Exposure form instead of the NOT form." The old form had
only two choices.
page 22
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
• Under subsection Facility Operator Information, applicants are asked for their IRS
Employer Identification Number. Applicants are also asked for their fax number
(optional) and their e-mail address.
• Under Facility Information, the phrase "County or similar government subdivision"
has been added. A facility's latitude and longitude must now be specified as either 1.
degrees, minutes, seconds; 2. degrees, minutes, decimal, or 3. decimal.
• Under Certifier Name and Title, applicants are asked for their "Title."
page 23
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3. Discussion of Notable Permit Provisions
Today's proposed MSGP 2006 accompanies this fact sheet. The fact sheet does not
discuss every provision of the proposed permit, especially if the provision is straight-forward,
easily understood and has not changed from MSGP 2000. However, a number of provisions in
the proposed MSGP 2006 are worthy of explanation. EPA invites comment on any of these
proposed provisions, as well as any other provision of the proposed permit. Where commenters
are concerned about specific provisions of this permit, EPA requests that the commenter suggests
specific alternatives.
3.1 Extension of Administrative Continuance for Existing Dischargers
MSGP 2000 expired before the issuance of MSGP 2006. Existing dischargers are
covered under an administrative continuance, but this continuance is only good until the effective
date of MSGP 2006. Because operators cannot submit NOIs until MSGP 2006 has been issued,
and because of the 30 day waiting period, EPA is proposing the following provision to ensure
that existing dischargers do not have a gap in permit coverage: if an entity is covered by MSGP
2000 on the effective date of MSGP 2006, permit coverage is automatically extended under the
MSGP 2000 for a period of up to 120 days provided that the entity submits a timely and complete
NOI in accordance with the deadlines in Table 1-2 of MSGP 2006.
3.2 Permit Compliance
EPA specifies that failure to meet any requirement of this permit is an enforceable permit
violation. EPA has added emphasis and explanation about what constitutes a permit violation in
several places in the permit in order to avoid any ambiguity. However, provisions where this
emphasis has not been included are also enforceable requirements.
3.3 Discharge Authorization Waiting Periods
Today's proposed permit includes a new 30 day waiting period for authorization (Part
1.5.2). The 30 day period begins on the day that EPA posts the completed Notice of Intent on the
e-NOI web site, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/noisearch. The purpose of the 30-day
wait is twofold: 1) to provide U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service (the Services) an opportunity to review the proposed discharge for protection of
threatened and endangered species and critical habitat consistent with the goals of the
Endangered Species Act, and 2) to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the
discharge.
The Services may request that EPA delay authorization beyond the 30 day wait period in
order to resolve any outstanding questions on the NOI or the discharge. In the event this happens,
EPA will delay authorization until such time that EPA determines appropriate actions have been
taken.
page 24
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
EPA is establishing a 30-day public comment opportunity in response to an expressed
public desire to provide input on individual discharges. Anyone wishing to comment on an NOI,
or the relevant proposed discharge, may submit comments to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office listed in Part 3.7 of the permit. EPA clarifies that this 30 day period is not a formal permit
public notice period; MSGP 2006 is undergoing the formal public notice process right now.
However, in the interest of providing the public a chance to comment on individual discharges,
EPA will consider any comments received during the 30 day period. EPA does not plan to
provide formal response to comments documents on comments received. However, EPA will
review comments, and if there is valid concern about the proposed discharge, EPA will take the
necessary steps to address the concern, e.g., require the relevant industrial operator to make
improvements to the SWPPP. Depending on the nature of the issue and the timing of the
comments, EPA will require appropriate action either prior to or following discharge
authorization. In addition, EPA may delay authorization if comments received warrant such a
delay, or may determine that the discharge is not eligible for authorization under MSGP 2006.
The potential burden to EPA of taking public comment on discharges requesting authorization
under this general permit is very significant, and thus EPA is hesitant to promise a specific
process at this juncture. EPA fully intends to honor a public comment process, but needs some
case-by-case flexibility on how this is accomplished.
In order for EPA to act on comments, commenters must be specific, detailed, and address
issues over which EPA has authority. EPA cautions that comments lacking clear and relevant
information may not be actionable. To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore
properly respond to public comments, EPA prefers that commenters cite, where possible, the
paragraph(s) or sections in the proposed permit, fact sheet or supporting documents to which the
comment refers. Commenters should use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed. EPA
notes that much of the information about a discharge and controls for the discharge are contained
in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and not the NOI. Members of the public
may request a copy of the SWPPP from the operator of the industrial facility (see discussion
below, Requirement for Availability of SWPPP). EPA will still receive and consider comments
after the 30 day comment period has ended.
EPA also requests comments on whether the 30 day public comment period should be
waived for new operators who submit NOIs during the first 30 days after MSGP 2006 goes into
effect. The purpose of this would be to allow new facilities no longer able to seek coverage under
MSGP 2000 to seek coverage as soon as possible under MSGP 2006.
3.4 Requirement for Availability of SWPPP
A copy of the SWPPP must be kept on site at the facility or be locally available for the
use of EPA, or representatives of a State, Tribe, or local agency (e.g., MS4 operator) at the time
of an onsite inspection (Part 2.4). The SWPPP must also be made available to any of these
agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service upon request.
Since SWPPPs are living documents that change over time, access to the current and full version
of the SWPPP is critical in assessing permit compliance.
page 25
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
SWPPPs are considered publicly available information. As with MSGP 2000, MSGP
2006 proposes that operators be required to provide a current copy of the SWPPP in a timely
manner to any member of the public making such a request. The mechanism for providing the
SWPPP is at the discretion of the operator (e.g., web-based, hard copy). EPA has not included a
time limit within which operators must provide their current SWPPPs, only that it must be
timely. EPA notes that no more than 2 weeks from receipt of the request should be entirely
adequate unless there are extenuating circumstances. In the event an operator receives numerous
requests, EPA would find it reasonable for the operator to make a copy available for review at a
public and easily accessible location, such as a township office or library in the community
where the facility is located. EPA encourages industrial operators to make their SWPPPs
available electronically both for ease and timeliness of access for the public and for reduced costs
for the operator. Operators may withhold from the public (but not from regulatory agencies)
information legitimately justified to be Confidential Business Information.
3.5 Water Quality Standards
In February 2001 two industry groups, the Federal Water Quality Coalition and the
Utility Act Group filed petitions in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asserting
that MSGP 2000 did not provide clarity on how the permittee was to meet water quality
standards. In particular, the dischargers did not have a clear idea of what constituted compliance
with water quality standards and permit eligibility. EPA and the petitioners entered into an
agreement in January 2005 in which EPA agreed to take comment, during the public notice
period for the proposed MSGP 2006, on specific permit language acceptable to the petitioners.
That language, provided in the form of edits to language in MSGP 2000, included as Attachment
A to the settlement, follows:
Begin Appendix A, Settlement Agreement
PROPOSED MSGP LANGUAGE
(The boldface and strikeout markings signify differences between the
language already incorporated into the 2000 MSGP and the proposed language
EPA is considering for the 2005 MSGP (now MSGP 2006))
1.2.3.5 Discharge Compliance with Water Quality Standards. You are not authorized for
storm water discharges that the Director, prior to authorization under this permit,
determines will cause, or have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to, violations of
an excursion above any applicable water quality standards. Where such determinations
have been made prior to authorization, the Director may notify you that an individual
permit application is necessary in accordance with Part 9.12. However, the Director may
authorize your coverage under this permit after you have included in your Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan appropriate controls and implementation procedures designed
to bring your discharges into compliance with water quality standards in your Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
1.2.3.8.2 You arc not authorized to discharge any pollutant into any water for which a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has boon either established or approved by the EPA
unless your discharge is consistent with that TMDL.
page 26
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
a. You are not eligible for coverage under this permit for discharges of pollutants of
concern to waters for which there is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
established or approved by EPA unless you incorporate into your SWPPP measures
or controls, and conditions applicable to your discharge, that are consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of such TMDL. If a specific wasteload allocation has
been established that would apply to your discharge, you must incorporate that
allocation into your SWPPP and implement necessary steps to meet that allocation.
b. In a situation where an EPA-approved or established TMDL has specified a
general wasteload allocation applicable to industrial storm water discharges, but no
specific requirements for industrial storm water discharges have been identified in
the TMDL, you should consult with the State or Federal TMDL authority to confirm
that adherence to a SWPPP that meets the requirements of the MSGP will be
consistent with the approved TMDL. Where an EPA-approved or EPA-established
TMDL has not specified a wasteload allocation applicable to industrial storm water
discharges, but has not specifically excluded these discharges, adherence to a
SWPPP that meets the requirements of the MSGP will generally be assumed to be
consistent with the approved TMDL. If the EPA-approved or EPA-established
TMDL specifically precludes such discharges, the operator is not eligible for
coverage under this permit.
1.3.1 Basic Eligibility
You may be authorized under this permit only if you have a discharge of storm water
associated with industrial activity from your facility. In order to obtain authorization under
this permit, you must:
1.3.1.1 Meet the Part 1.2 eligibility requirements; and
1.3.1.2 Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (see
definition in Part 12) according to the requirements in Part 4 of this permit.
1.3.1.3 Submit a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) in accordance with the requirements of
Part 2 of this permit. Any new operator at a facility, including those who replace an
operator who has previously obtained permit coverage, must submit an NOI to be covered
for discharges for which they are the operator.
3.3 Attainment of Discharge Compliance With Water Quality Standards After
Authorization
At any time after authorization, the Director may determine that your storm water
discharges may cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an
excursion above any applicable water quality standard. If such a determination is
made, the Director may require you within a specified time period to:
A. Develop and implement a supplemental BMP action plan describing SWPPP
modifications in accordance with Subpart 4.10 to address adequately the identified
water quality concerns;
page 27
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
B. Submit valid and verifiable data and information that are representative of
ambient conditions and indicate that the receiving water is attaining water quality
standards; or
C. Submit an individual permit application according to Subpart 9.12.
All written responses required under this Subpart must include a signed certification
consistent with Subpart 9.7.
Your discharges must not bo causing or havo tho reasonable potential to causo or
contribute to a violation of a water quality standard. Where a discharge is already
authorized under this permit and is later determined to causo or havo tho reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to the violation of an applicable water quality standard, the
Director will notify you of such violation(s). You must take all nocossary actions to onsuro
future discharges do not cause or contribute to the violation of a water quality standard
and document those actions in tho Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. If violations
remain or re occur, then coverage under this permit may be terminated by the Director,
and an alternative general permit or individual pormit may bo issuod. Compliance with this
requirement does not preclude any enforcement activity as provided by the Clean Water
Act for tho underlying violation.
4.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
You must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for your facility
before submitting your Notice of Intent for permit coverage. Your SWPPP must be
prepared in accordance with good engineering practices include BMPs that are selected,
installed, implemented and maintained in accordance with good engineering
practices to minimize pollutants in the discharge so that the discharge will not cause
or contribute to an excursion above any applicable water quality standards. Use of a
registered professional engineer for SWPPP preparation is not required by the permit, but
may be independently required under state law and/or local ordinance. Your SWPPP
must:
4.1.1 Identify potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect
the quality of storm water discharges from your facility;
4.1.2 Describe and ensure implementation of practices which you will use to reduce the
pollutants in storm water discharges from the facility; and
4.1.3 assure compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.
4.1.4 include all necessary measures to ensure that the discharge is consistent with
any relevant TMDL that has been established or approved by EPA, as required by
Subpart 1.2.3.8.2.
10.1 Water Quality Protection
If there is evidence indicating that the storm water discharges authorized by this permit
cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to a violation of a an
excursion above any applicable water quality standard, you may be required to obtain an
page 28
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
individual permit or an alternative general permit in accordance with Part 3.3 of this
permit, or the permit may be modified to include different limitations and/or requirements.
End Appendix A, Settlement Agreement
EPA invites comment on the language in Settlement Appendix A, above. Although EPA
has reorganized the contents of the sections, in general, the concepts presented in the above
language are incorporated into the 2006 MSGP.
Today's proposed MSGP makes clear that the dischargers requirements for meeting water
quality standards applied to permit requirements and not to eligibility requirements. Under
MSGP 2000 a discharger, discovering possibly a year or more after authorization that a water
quality standards provision is not being met, is faced with the situation of having been ineligible
for coverage. Petitioners asserted that this situation is ambiguous for the permittee, providing
liability not just for the water quality standards violation, but also for an unpermitted discharge
believed initially to be authorized.
From EPA's perspective, making the distinction between eligibility and permit
requirements is important for getting the most effective resolution of water quality problems.
EPA believes that problematic discharges can be much more rapidly remedied within the
framework of a permit requirement, including the compliance and enforcement provisions of a
permit. Therefore EPA is proposing to include the water quality standards provisions of this
permit (Part 1.4) as permit requirements rather than eligibility requirements.
The MSGP 2000 language "Your discharge must not be causing or have the reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to a violation of a water quality standards" has been difficult for
many operators to apply since their receiving waters are usually subject to dozens of water
quality standards, and because the permit does not specify conditions or limitations specific to
each one of those standards. Therefore, EPA has not included this general phrase in MSGP 2006.
Most of the clarifications suggested by the petitioners are included in MSGP 2006 though most
are not verbatim, largely because MSGP 2006 is organized differently from MSGP 2000.
The MSGP, like other NPDES permits, must include provisions to ensure that discharges
do not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards in the receiving water
[Clean Water Act § 301(b)(1)(C) and 402(p)(3)(A), as well as 40 CFR 122.44(d)(4)], In MSGP
2006 EPA is proposing to clarify discharge standards, to update benchmarks to reflect current
water quality criteria, to strengthen SWPPP requirements, to strengthen accountability
requirements (inspections, monitoring, reporting and record-keeping) to assure compliance, and
has attempted to remove any ambiguity about what constitutes an enforceable permit violation.
EPA believes that a tighter, clearer permit will be easier for operators to understand, and much
more protective of water quality.
The proposed MSGP 2006 does include a requirement (Part 2.1.3.1) for operators to
determine the water quality standards relevant to their receiving water(s). Applicable water
quality standards are compiled at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/states/ and are also
available from state environmental protection or water quality regulatory agencies. EPA believes
page 29
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
that this information is relatively easy to acquire, and will be very useful for operators to have as
they plan their BMPs.
EPA has not fully incorporated the framework (articulated in Appendix A Parts 1.2.3.5
and 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement) regarding pre- and post-authorization water quality
standards exceedances, in which full responsibility for discovering water quality standard
exceedances and requiring corrective action rests with EPA. EPA does not believe that an
operator seeking coverage under the MSGP should be relieved entirely of responsibility
regarding water quality standards-related concerns. It is not practical to expect EPA to evaluate
the in-stream water quality effects of individual discharges covered under a general permit on a
regular basis. Rather than requiring each discharger to submit all necessary data for EPA to
perform a reasonable potential analysis, EPA is relying on the use of key benchmark parameters
and the aforementioned provisions regarding permittee responsibilities to act on identified water
quality concerns. EPA believes that if an operator were to discover that the discharge contributed
to an exceedance of a water quality standard then he/she is obligated to act on that knowledge.
The proposed MSGP 2006 describes a process for both the operator and EPA when a water
quality standard exceedance is discovered, regardless of the party making the discovery. The
permittee is not obligated to seek out water quality standards exceedances through ambient water
quality monitoring, but is not relieved of responsibility to respond should he discover or be made
aware of a water quality exceedance.
EPA has clarified a requirement to review the SWPPP and take appropriate corrective
actions when a discharge is causing or contributing to a water quality standard exceedance, and
to conduct follow-up monitoring to verify that the discharge is no longer contributing to an
exceedance. Failure to take and carefully document appropriate corrective action or conduct
follow-up monitoring is a permit violation. EPA may also decide that an individual permit may
be more appropriate for a particular discharge and require the operator to submit an application
for an individual permit. EPA believes that this provides a fair and enforceable mechanism for
resolving water quality standard exceedances, and relieves the petitioner's primary concern of
liability for two specific situations: 1) when there are water quality standard exceedances for
pollutants that operators do not believe are present in their discharges and for which the permit
does not stipulate specific discharge standards, and thus for which they have not implemented
controls, and 2) when BMPs are appropriately planned and implemented, and benchmarks and
effluent limits (if applicable) are being met, but due to site- or waterbody-specific circumstances,
are not adequately protective of water quality.
EPA requests comments on any of the proposed modifications to how water quality
standard requirements are incorporated into this permit.
3.6 Water Quality Impaired and Water Quality Limited Receiving Waters
Today's permit clarifies both eligibility and permit provisions for discharges to water
quality impaired and water quality limited receiving waters. EPA has eliminated language from
the 2000 MSGP that the discharge must "be consistent with" a TMDL. That terminology was not
clear about necessary controls or discharger expectations, and as a result EPA believes that many
page 30
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
dischargers undertook no additional measures to reduce pollutants of concern in their discharges,
or ensure that their discharges complied with TMDL wasteload allocations.
As an eligibility provision MSGP 2006 prohibits authorization when a TMDL specifically
articulates a wasteload allocation requiring more stringent controls than can be achieved with this
permit. 'Specifically articulates' means that the TMDL, the TMDL implementation plan, or the
TMDL authority must stipulate that the discharge (either specifically or categorically) must be
authorized under an individual permit, an alternative general permit, or specifically excludes
authorization under MSGP. In a situation where an EPA-approved or established TMDL has
specified a general wasteload allocation applicable to industrial storm water discharges, but no
specific requirements for individual sites have been identified in the TMDL, you should consult
with the State or Federal TMDL authority to confirm that adherence to a SWPPP that meets the
requirements of the MSGP will be consistent with the approved TMDL. In addition MSGP 2006
prohibits authorization when a TMDL applies a wasteload allocation of zero to a discharge
(either specifically or categorically). Because, to date, most TMDLs do not include these kinds of
wasteload allocations for stormwater, this provision is not likely to preclude authorization under
this permit of very many industrial stormwater discharges. EPA does believe, however, that this
is an important provision in the handful of situations where it may apply.
A large number of MSGP-eligible discharges are to impaired waters, and therefore EPA
believes that the best water quality protection is to stipulate clear requirements and a specific
process for those facility operators. Some consultation with federal or state TMDL authorities
may be necessary, and EPA emphasizes that the responsibility for this initial contact is the
industrial operator's. Given the number of state, territorial and tribal areas that today's proposed
permit covers EPA does not believe this is an unrealistic framework. EPA has tried to include the
necessary direction for those consultations, and welcomes suggestions for improvement. EPA has
also clearly stipulated that compliance with the MSGP is adequate if the TMDL authority does
not stipulate additional requirements when specifically asked. Operators must document these
discussions in their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs).
Today's proposed MSGP 2006 includes provisions for both TMDL and pre-TMDL
waters, including a new monitoring requirement for the pollutant(s) of concern. Operators are
required to implement TMDL wasteload allocations where one has been established, contact
TMDL authorities for clarity where the wasteload allocation is not clear, document all measures
taken to comply, monitor their discharge(s) (annually at a minimum) for the pollutant(s) of
concern, take corrective actions when endpoints are not being met, and report to EPA all data
including exceedances. When the wasteload allocation is expressed only as specific BMP
requirements, monitoring may be waived after one year if the pollutant of concern is not detected
in the discharge, and the required BMPs have been implemented and documented in the SWPPP.
Discharges to pre-TMDL waters or to TMDL waters where a numeric wasteload
allocation has not been expressed are also required to comply with any additional measures that
may be stipulated by EPA or the state, territorial or tribal authority. These discharges must also
be monitored for the pollutant of concern. If state or tribal authorities have not specified an
alternate schedule, the monitoring requirement is waived after one year if the pollutant of
concern is not detected in the stormwater discharge, and the operator documents in the SWPPP
page 31
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
that there is no exposure of the pollutant of concern to stormwater at the site. Lists of
waterbodies with approved TMDLs may be obtained from appropriate State environmental
offices or their Internet sites and from EPA's TMDL Internet site at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/index.html.
EPA invites comment on any proposed provision for discharges to impaired waters.
3.7 Benchmark Monitoring
Benchmark Framework. Benchmarks have been included in prior MSGPs, and have been
intended to serve as indicators for permittees about whether or not their stormwater controls are
adequate. Exceedances of benchmark concentrations have been intended to serve as action-levels
to help operators improve BMPs. Based on repeated exceedances of benchmark values reported
to EPA by some facilities, as well as failure of many facilities to report any monitoring data, EPA
believes that additional clarity and enhanced accountability are needed (see "DMR Review
MSGP - Memo titled Review of Discharge Monitoring Report Data for the MSGP 2000" for
more details). Benchmark exceedances do not necessarily indicate that a SWPPP is inadequate,
but they do indicate a need for careful review of the SWPPP to ensure that appropriate BMPs are
being implemented. Under MSGP 2000 permittees did not begin monitoring until the 2nd year of
permit coverage. Based on an evaluation of the discharge monitoring data collected under that
permit, EPA determined that a number of pollutant discharge problems went unrecognized for
over a year (see "DMR Review MSGP" for more details). Therefore EPA is modifying the
permit to require that monitoring begin in the first quarter of permit coverage.
Today's proposed MSGP 2006 provides that following one year (4 quarterly monitoring
events) of monitoring, if the average of the 4 monitoring values does not exceed the benchmark,
the permittee has fulfilled the monitoring requirements for the duration of the permit term for
that pollutant. If the average of the 4 quarterly benchmark monitoring values for a given
pollutant exceeds the benchmark concentration, this exceedance immediately triggers a
requirement to review the SWPPP to determine whether it includes all appropriate BMPs to
eliminate or reduce the pollutant of concern in the discharge. Where the operator determines that
the SWPPP does not meet the provisions of Part 2 of the permit he/she must modify the SWPPP
within 14 days and implement the revised BMPs prior to the next rainfall event if possible, but in
no case later than 60 days, except as otherwise provided by EPA. The operator must then
continue quarterly monitoring for 4 more quarters to ensure that corrective actions are effective.
EPA emphasizes that even though a benchmark exceedance itself is not a permit violation,
failure to review the SWPPP, and take necessary corrective actions determined by the SWPPP
review within the stipulated time frames is a violation. In addition, an exceedance may be
indicative of other permit violations, such as failure to adequately maintain BMPs.
In some instances, following an exceedance of a benchmark by the average value of the 4
monitoring events, an operator may conduct the SWPPP review and determine that modifications
to the SWPPP and BMPs are not warranted. EPA recognizes that there may be circumstances
where benchmarks may not be reasonably achieved because of elevated background levels of
pollutants. For example, high natural background levels of iron in soils or groundwater could
page 32
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
contribute to exceedances of a benchmark. Concern has also been expressed that there may be
other circumstances when an operator has taken all economically reasonable and appropriate
measures to control pollutants, but a benchmark may still be exceeded. To address these
situations, MSGP 2006 is proposing to provide an opportunity for permittees, following a review
of their SWPPP, to determine that they are implementing all reasonable and appropriate BMPs to
reduce pollutants in the discharge, and to document the basis for this determination in the
SWPPP. Following the operator's determination that the SWPPP is adequate, the operator may
reduce benchmark monitoring to once per year for the remainder of the permit term. EPA
requests comment of all aspects of this proposed provision.
MSGP 2000 Benchmark Data Analysis. EPA undertook an analysis of the monitoring
requirements of the MSGP 2000 that included: how effective existing controls on these
discharges have been based on the history of discharge monitoring data; Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) data; and results and conclusions from the University of California Los Angeles
Final Report, Industrial Storm Water Monitoring Program Existing Statewide Permit Utility and
Proposed Modifications. One of the primary purposes of these analyses was to determine if
elimination of, or modification or addition to, benchmark monitoring requirements was
warranted. The full analyses and documentation are included in the docket for this proposed
permit (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/, docket number OW-2005-0007). Conclusions from those
analyses are presented here.
EPA was prepared to drop any benchmark monitoring requirement where data indicated
that a pollutant was not present in the discharge, or occurred consistently at such low levels that
monitoring would provide no indicator value to the operator with respect to discharge quality.
However, based upon review of TRI data and MSGP 2000 monitoring data EPA only found one
benchmark that could be eliminated. EPA dropped the benchmark for manganese because there
were no EPA established criteria (there was only Colorado state chronic water quality criteria).
However, EPA may consider adding a manganese benchmark back into future permits. Based on
this criterion, EPA did conclude that additional benchmarks are necessary to ensure that
receiving waters will be adequately protected.
New Benchmark Monitoring Requirements for Certain Sectors. The total suspended
solids (TSS) benchmark (100 mg/L), which applies to a number of sectors under MSGP 2000,
has been expanded to all discharges authorized under MSGP. TSS is a reasonable screen or
indicator of stormwater discharge quality since many stormwater pollutants are themselves
suspended solids, or enter receiving waters attached to solids. TSS is a relatively inexpensive
parameter to measure, and TSS data are not difficult to interpret for the simple purpose of
providing operators an indication of whether or not their BMPs need additional attention.
Inspection of TRI data indicated that the wood preservation subsector (SIC 2491) of
sector A (timber products) appeared to be missing some key parameters identified both in the
updated industry fact sheets and in the TRI discharge data. SIC 2491 comprises only 27% of the
total dischargers reporting to TRI from sector A, however in examining the discharge to
stormwater data it was noted that 78% of the total number of discharges to stormwater for the
entire sector were from this SIC.
page 33
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
New proposed benchmarks for the wood preserving subsector are chromium, which was
targeted for potential historical chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood storage, and
phenols as an indicator for pentachlorophenol (PCP), and methyl phenols. While chemical
oxygen demand (COD) is a good indicator of organics, PCP was considered a key target due to
prevalence of historical use and its overall toxicity. Rather than monitor for PCP directly (which
is an expensive approach), a decision was made to use phenols as an indicator. This indicator
benchmark targets the current recommended water quality standard of 0.019 mg/L for
pentachlorophenol ("EPA-Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria" Acute Aquatic Life
Freshwater (EPA 822-R-02-047 November 2002)).
TRI data for sector I, oil and gas extraction and refining, revealed that future investigation
is warranted for possible inclusion of ammonia, lead, nickel, nitrate-nitrite, and zinc. These
pollutants appear at a frequency indicating that they are regularly handled at these facilities,
which may pose an unacceptable risk for continued coverage under the MSGP without additional
monitoring.
TRI data for sector Y, rubber, miscellaneous plastic products, and miscellaneous
manufacturing industries, indicate additional consideration of monitoring for lead, as 32 of 526
incidences of lead and lead compounds were reported discharged to stormwater. While this
frequency is somewhat limited, the numbers of occurrences of these compounds in the TRI may
be sufficient to warrant additional investigation. The new benchmark monitoring requirement for
lead applies only to the following subsectors in sector Y: manufacture of rubber products: tires
and inner tubes; rubber footwear; gaskets, packing and sealing devices; rubber hoses and belting;
and fabricated rubber products not elsewhere classified.
For the electronic and electrical equipment and components except computers (SIC 3612-
3699) subsector of sector AC (electronic, electrical, photographic, and optical goods), monitoring
of copper, lead, manganese, and nickel were recommended for additional consideration based on
frequency of TRI occurrences. Further inspection of the TRI data revealed that manganese and
nickel were not reported at a frequency to warrant additional monitoring. Copper and copper
compounds, and lead and lead compounds were observed 872 and 1848 times, respectively with
discharge to stormwater reported in 10 and 4.6% of those instances, respectively.
No additional monitoring was added for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, primarily
due to the costs associated with that type of monitoring ($700-$900 per sample). TRI data for
dioxins and dioxin-like compounds were reported approximately 150 times between 1999 and
2002, and 25 of those included discharge to stormwater. EPA will continue to monitor TRI data
for dioxin and reconsider for the next reissuance of MSGP whether or not dioxin monitoring is
appropriate.
EPA welcomes comments on any of these proposed new benchmark monitoring
provisions.
Updated Benchmark Values in the 2006 MSGP. Benchmark values are based primarily
on water quality criteria. In the 1995 and 2000 MSGP, where an applicable water quality
criterion was below the minimum level (ML) of quantification for the most sensitive available
page 34
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
analytic method, EPA instead used a value equal to 3.18 times the method detection limit
(MDL) for that pollutant in lieu of the water quality criterion. (For a full discussion of EPA's
initial approach for the derivation of the benchmarks see the fact sheet for the 1995 MSGP (60
FR 50825).
For the 2006 MSGP, EPA has identified methods for all but two pollutant parameters
(total magnesium and total phenols) that have an ML below the applicable water quality
criterion. Where there are no established EPA water quality criteria, EPA used other sources of
data to determine the appropriate benchmark value. The process that EPA followed in selecting
the benchmark values for the 2006 MSGP is as follows: 1) First, if there is an EPA promulgated
acute criterion then EPA selected that value for the benchmark; 2) If there is no EPA acute
criterion, then EPA selected the chronic criterion as the benchmark value; 3) Finally, in the
remaining few instances where there were neither EPA acute or chronic criteria available for a
specific pollutant, then EPA selected the benchmark value based on data from runoff studies or
technology-based standards.
Table 1 includes all of the pollutants for which the proposed MSGP 2006 specifies
benchmarks. Where a benchmark has changed, it has been for one of the following reasons:
The values for 9 benchmarks (arsenic, cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, and silver) have been revised (e.g., switching from an MDL to an ambient water
quality criterion, or updated to reflect a revised WQ criterion).
The values for 4 benchmarks (antimony, lead, magnesium, and zinc) have been rounded
to two significant figures.
The existing turbidity benchmark, 5 NTU above background, requires the permittee to
monitor both the discharge and the receiving stream. The proposed new benchmark (50 NTU)
requires the permittee to monitor only the discharge.
Table 1 below shows a comparison the MSGP 2000 and MSGP 2006 benchmark values and
the source of those values. The MSGP 2006 proposed changes to the MSGP 2000
benchmark values are highlighted in the table.
Comparing Benchmark .Monitoring Pollutants Sources lor 2000 and 2006 MSGP
Pollutant
2000 MSGP
Benchmark
2000
MSGP
Source
2006 MSGP
Proposed
Benchmark
2006
MSGP
Source
Different
basis?
Ammonia*
19 mg/L
10
19 mg/L
1
No
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
(5 day)
30 mg/L
4
30 mg/L
4
No
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
120 mg/L
5
120 mg/L
5
No
Total Suspended
Solids
100 mg/L
7
100 mg/L
7
No
I'u ili id il\
5 VI I ;ihn\e
13
5() \il
(j
Yes
page 35
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Compiiring licnchmsirk Monitoring I'olliilsinls Sources lor 2000 ;iihI 2006 .MS(iP
Pollutant
2000 MSGP
Benchmark
2000
MSGP
Source
2006 MSGP
Proposed
Benchmark
2006
MSGP
Source
Different
basis?
haekurniiiid
Nitrate + Nitrite
Nitrogen
0.68 mg/L
7
0.68 mg/L
7
No
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/L
6
2.0 mg/L
6
No
pH
6.0 - 9.0 s.u.
4
6.0 - 9.0 s.u.
4
No
Aluminum, Total
(pH 6.5 - 9)
0.75 mg/L
10
0.75 mg/L
1
No
Anliniom. Total
11 HI" |.
8
ii M nw 1.
12
Yes
Arsenic. loial
ii 1^854 iiil: 1.
X
ii 15 nig 1.
Yes
1 ici n Ilium. Toial
II 13 IllL! 1.
">
II 13 IllL! 1.
\o
( admium. Toial'
ii ii 15^ nig 1.
8
nig 1.
1
Yes
( hromium. Toial
\ A
\ A
1 8 nig 1.
1
^ es. added as
a new
benchmark in
2(ldfi \IS(iP
Copper. Toial*
11 1 Kvfl MIL! 1.
X
II II 14 IllL! 1.
1
Yes
( \amde
II dfvh IllL! 1.
X
(i (i22 nig 1.
1
Yes
Iron, Total
1.0 mg/L
11
1.0 mg/L
3
No
Lead, Total*'
0.0816 mg/L
10
0.082 mg/L
1
No
Magnesium, Total
0.0636 mg/L
8
0.064 mg/L
8
No
Mercury, Total
0.0024 mg/L
10
0.0014 mg/L
1
criteria
updated
Nickel, Total '
1.417 mg/L
10
0.47 mg/L
1
criteria
updated
Phenols. loial
\ A
\ A
(i nUi nig 1.
X
^ es. added as
a new
benchmark in
2(i(iri \IS(iP
Selenium. Toial*
ii 2385 nig 1.
X
ii ii(i5 niu 1.
Yes
Silxer. l oial;:
ii (>3 18 mg 1.
X
(i (iii38 nig 1.
1
Yes
Zinc, Total '
0.117 mg/L
10
0.12 mg/L
1
No; criteria
updated
* New criteria are currently under development, but values are based on existing criteria.
t These pollutants are dependent on water hardness. The benchmark value listed is based on a hardness of
100 mg/L. If you analyze your water samples for hardness, then an alternate benchmark may apply if you
use the equations provided in Part 4.
Sources
1. "EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria." Acute Aquatic Life Freshwater (EPA-822-R-02-047
November 2002-CMC)
page 36
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
2. "EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Beryllium." LOEL Acute Freshwater (EPA-440-
5-80-024 October 1980)
3. "EPA-Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria." Chronic Aquatic Life Freshwater (EPA-822-R-02-
047 November 2002-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 Quality Standards
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
9. Combination of simplified variations on Stormwater Effects Handbook, Burton and Pitt, 2001 and water
quality standards in Idaho, in conjunction with review of DMR data.
10. "EPA Recommended 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. "EPA Recommended 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. "EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria" Human Health For the Consumption of Organism
Only (EPA-822-R-02-047 November 2002)
13. Consistent with many state numeric Water Quality Criteria. This benchmark was agreed to in negotiations
for the 1998 modification to the 1995 MSGP (63 FR 42534).
In most cases, benchmarks have not been significantly revised since the 1995 MSGP.
However, six of the benchmarks now have new values based on EPA water quality criteria,
which are lower than the previous values. These are cadmium, copper, cyanide, selenium, silver,
and nickel. For the first five of these, the values have been changed from 3.18 times the MDL
for a particular analytical method, to ambient water quality criteria. In each case, EPA has
identified one or more alternate methods with lower detection limits. The changes in methods
and MDLs are as follows. (Note: The source of the cost for each method was based on
laboratories that specialize in effluent monitoring analysis).
Methods, MDL, and Cost Table.
Pollutant
Previous Analytic Method
New Analytic Method
Method
ID
MDL
$/sample
Method
ID
MDL
$/sample
Cadmium
200.7
4 ug/L
$10
200.8
0.5 ug/L
$12
Copper
220.1
20 ug/L
$20
200.8
0.09 ug/L
$12
Cyanide
335.2
20 ug L
$40
335.3
4 ug/L
$40
Selenium
200.7
75 ug/L
$10
270.2
2 ug/L
$20
Silver
272.1
10 ug/L
$20
200.8
0.11 ug/L
$12
Additional supporting data is available in the docket for this permit (see Previous and
New Analytical Methods for MSGP). EPA recognizes that use of the more sensitive methods
will involve somewhat higher analytical costs, and notes that the estimated cost increases are
between $2 (20%% increase) and $10 (100% increase) per sample, but EPA believes these higher
costs are justified because use of the more sensitive methods that have an ML below the
applicable acute (or chronic) value will provide information to EPA that may be used to assess
page 37
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
whether or not the discharge may have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of water quality standards. In the case of nickel, the acute WQ standard that formed
the basis of the previous benchmark was revised downward in 1996, but the lower benchmark
will not require use of a new analytical method.
EPA requests comment on 1) the benchmark values as a screening tool to guide SWPPP
revisions and evaluate whether a discharge may have the potential to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of a water quality standard and the appropriate bases for these values; 2) the
detection levels and estimated additional costs of the more sensitive analytic methods that will be
required for some benchmarks; and, 3) the availability of labs within the United States to conduct
analyses using the more sensitive methods.
In addition to the revised benchmark values, EPA has revised the benchmark provisions
in the 2006 MSGP as follows. If the annual average of four quarterly monitoring results exceeds
a benchmark, the permittees are now required to review their SWPPP and document the results
of this review. EPA expects that this review would also include consideration of other relevant
data, such as results of on-site inspections and visual monitoring, as appropriate. EPA
recognizes that exceeding a benchmark does not necessarily mean that changes to the SWPPP are
needed, but believes that permittees should review their SWPPPs and document the results of
this review. If the permittee determines that no changes to the SWPPP are needed, this must be
documented in the SWPPP. In this case, the permittee must continue to monitor for the pollutant
exceeding the benchmark for the remainder of the permit term, but the frequency of such
monitoring is reduced to annually. On a case-by-case basis, EPA may review monitoring results,
as well as background concentrations in the stream, State mixing zone policies, and other
relevant data to determine whether a discharge consistently exceeding benchmarks has a
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation of State water quality standards. If the
permittee determines as a result of the SWPPP review that the SWPPP does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 2 of this permit, the permittee must take corrective action and document
it in the SWPPP. In this case, the permittee must continue quarterly monitoring of the
benchmark parameter for an additional four quarters.
EPA does not intend to change the basic framework for benchmark monitoring
established in the 1995 and 2000 permits. During its development of the 2000 permit, EPA
received substantial public comment questioning the value of analytic monitoring. EPA
responded to these comments, in part, as follows:
"EPA acknowledges that, considering the small number of samples required per
monitoring year (four), and the vagaries of storm water discharges, it may be difficult to
determine or confirm the existence of a discharge problem as a commenter claimed. When
viewed as an indicator, analytic levels considerably above benchmark values can serve as a flag
to the operator that his SWPPP needs to be reevaluated and that pollutant loads may need to be
reduced. Conversely, analytic levels below or near benchmarks can confirm to the operator that
his SWPPP is doing its intended job. EPA believes there is presently no alternative that provides
stakeholders with an equivalent indicator of program effectiveness." (FR 65/210, Oct 20, 2000,
p 64796)
page 38
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
This response continues to represent EPA's thinking regarding the appropriate use of
analytic monitoring. However, EPA believes it would improve SWPPP implementation to
require that permittees document their review of their SWPPP when benchmarks are exceeded
and take corrective action where needed. EPA requests comment on the revised benchmark
values and documentation requirements.
In the Fact Sheet to the 2000 permit, EPA also committed to ".. .using data from the 1995
and 2000 permits to evaluate the effectiveness of management practices on an industry sector
basis and to evaluate the need for changes in the monitoring protocols for the next permit." EPA
has prepared an analysis of benchmark data, which is available in the docket for this permit (see
DMR Review MSGP - Memo titled "Review of Discharge Monitoring Report Data for the
MSGP 2000"). EPA determined, based on this analysis, that available analytic monitoring data
indicated that many facilities report routine exceedances of benchmark values. However, EPA
has not yet been able to complete this analysis to determine whether these exceedances provide
useful indicators of SWPPP inadequacies or potential water quality problems. In developing the
2011 permit, EPA intends to conduct further analysis on selected industry sectors that are
discharging to both impaired and unimpaired water bodies to evaluate the usefulness of the
monitoring data to the permittee or permitting authority in determining the adequacy of the
SWPPP or the potential for water quality standards exceedances. As part of this analysis, EPA
will assess the extent to which benchmark exceedances correlate with determinations that
corrective action or additional measures to address water quality are needed. EPA requests
comment on the following: 1) given the variability of analytic results, are benchmark
exceedances a useful indicator of the need for corrective action, 2) are they a useful indicator of
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards, 3) are there
other values besides water quality criteria that should be considered as the bases for benchmark
values, and 4) are there approaches other than analytic monitoring that would be effective in
ensuring that SWPPPs are properly designed and implemented? EPA intends to engage
interested stakeholders in the development of the study design.
3.8 Inactive and Unstaffed Sites
Today's MSGP allows for a waiver from benchmark monitoring for facilities that are both
inactive and unstaffed, when the facility no longer has industrial activities or materials exposed
to stormwater. EPA believes that a facility with no industrial activity and no exposed materials
should not be contributing pollutants to stormwater discharges. These facilities could
alternatively submit a No Exposure Certification, and terminate permit coverage. However, EPA
realizes that there are some facilities that may plan to commence industrial activity in the future
that would include exposure, and may wish to keep active permit coverage. To qualify for this
waiver permittees must certify in their SWPPPs that they are inactive and unstaffed, and that
there are no industrial activities or materials exposed to stormwater. Permittees are not required
to obtain advance approval for this waiver. This waiver applies only to benchmark monitoring.
Annual monitoring requirements for effluent limitation guideline pollutants or other parameters
are not waivable.
page 39
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
MSGP 2000 provides a benchmark monitoring waiver only for inactive and unstaffed
sites that are remote, because monitoring may be deemed impractical. However, the provision
does not require 'no exposure' of industrial materials. The proposed permit expands the waiver
to any inactive and unstaffed facility. However, because discharge of pollutants does not cease
when industrial materials are still outside, EPA believes that elimination of exposure is a
reasonable pre-requisite for this monitoring waiver. EPA requests comment on this provision.
3.9 Representative Outfalls
As with MSGP 2000, today's proposed MSGP allows a facility to reduce its overall
benchmark monitoring burden when discharges through separate outfalls are essentially identical.
This provision applies to benchmark monitoring requirements, and has been expanded in MSGP
2006 to apply to visual monitoring as well. The 'representative outfall' determination should be
based on a consideration of industrial activity, significant materials, and management practices
and activities within the area drained by the outfalls. When such a determination is made, the
permittee may test the effluent of one such outfall and report that the quantitative data also apply
to the essentially identical outfall(s). To do this the permittee must include in the SWPPP a
description of the location of the outfalls and a detailed explanation of why the outfalls are
expected to discharge substantially identical effluent. In addition, for each outfall that the
permittee believes is representative, an estimate of the size of the drainage area (in square feet)
and an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the drainage area (e.g., low [under 40 percent],
medium [40 to 65 percent], or high [above 65 percent]) must be provided in the plan. Because of
the highly variable nature of outdoor activities at industrial facilities EPA cautions operators to
carefully consider all factors before selecting this option. Permittees do not need EPA approval to
claim that discharges are representative, provided they have documented their rationale within
the SWPPP. However, the Director may determine that the discharges are not representative and
may require sampling of all non-identical outfalls. Facilities that change any conditions affecting
any of the 'representative outfall' discharges are required to reassess their eligibility for this
provision.
3.10 Reduced Benchmark Monitoring for Performance Track Facilities
The National Environmental Performance Track Program is a voluntary EPA program
that recognizes and rewards private and public facilities that demonstrate strong environmental
performance beyond current requirements. Performance Track currently has about 370 members.
The program is based on the premise that government should complement its existing programs
and regulations with new tools and strategies that not only protect people and the environment,
but also capture opportunities for reducing cost and spurring innovation. The Performance Track
program (PT) is a facility-based program (not company-wide or corporate). There are four basic
criteria that applying facilities must meet: 1) an Environmental Management System (EMS) in
place for at least one full cycle that has been assessed by an independent party; 2) a history of
sustained compliance; 3) past environmental achievements and a commitment to quantified
continuous environmental improvement; and 4) community outreach and annual reporting. Once
accepted, members remain in the program for three years, as long as they continue to meet the
page 40
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
program criteria. After three years they may apply to renew their membership through a
streamlined application process. The program encourages participation by small, medium, and
large facilities, and its members are located throughout the United States, including Puerto Rico.
Through its members over the past three years the Performance Track program has produced
substantial environmental results beyond the legal requirements for the facilities. See
http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/ for more information about the Performance Track
program.
EPA is considering reduced benchmark monitoring for facilities that are participating in
the National Environmental Performance Track Program. Specifically, EPA is considering
waiving benchmark monitoring for the remainder of the permit term by Performance Track
facilities if they do not exceed their benchmark monitoring values in either of the first two
quarters of monitoring. Alternatively, EPA could waive benchmark monitoring entirely for
Performance Track facilities.
The benchmark monitoring requirements in the MSGP serve as a tool for permittees to
determine if their BMPs are adequately controlling pollutants in stormwater. However, EPA
recognizes that pollution prevention and self-assessment are also inherent components of an
Environmental Management System. Therefore, EPA believes that it is appropriate to reduce the
burden on those facilities that have taken the extra step toward continuous environmental
improvement through the Performance Track program. Under these circumstances EPA
considers two quarters of monitoring to be sufficient for demonstrating that the benchmark
values will not be exceeded. EPA requests comments on considering reduced benchmark
monitoring for Performance Track members.
EPA welcomes comments on benchmark monitoring waivers for Performance Track
facilities.
EPA welcomes comments on any of the proposed benchmark provisions.
3.11 Numeric Effluent Limitations
Numeric effluent limitations have been included in previous MSGPs. The effluent
limitation guidelines for certain industry-specific discharges and limitations for runoff from coal
piles in the 2000 permit are retained in today's proposed MSGP 2006. Monitoring for these
parameters must be conducted once each year for the duration of permit coverage.
As with all other types of exceedances, the proposed MSGP 2006 clarifies the
requirement for corrective action whenever there is an exceedance of a numeric effluent limit.
EPA also clarifies that these numbers are effluent limitations, and an exceedance is a permit
violation.
There is also now a requirement to conduct follow up monitoring within 30 days of
completing corrective action, or during the next runoff event, in order to verify that modified
stormwater controls have satisfactorily reduced pollutants in the discharge. EPA believes that this
verification is an important component of accountability, and helps ensure that problems are
page 41
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
fixed quickly rather than persisting until the next regularly scheduled monitoring event, which
generally would be a year away.
3.12 Quarterly Visual Monitoring
Today's proposed MSGP retains the requirements of the 1995 and 2000 MSGP for
quarterly visual examinations of stormwater discharges that EPA continues to believe provide a
useful and inexpensive means for permittees to evaluate the effectiveness of their SWPPPs (with
immediate feedback), and to make any necessary modifications to address the results of the
visual examinations. All sectors of today's proposed MSGP are required to conduct these
examinations.
The MSGP requires that grab samples of stormwater discharges be taken and examined
visually for the presence of color, odor, clarity, floating solids, settled solids, suspended solids,
foam, oil sheen, or other obvious indicators of stormwater pollution. The grab samples must be
taken within the first 30 minutes after stormwater discharges begin, or as soon as practicable, but
no longer than 1 hour after discharges begin. The sampling must be conducted four times a year,
though not necessarily strictly quarterly. In arid or semi-arid climates for instance, areas subject
to prolonged dry seasons, one sample must be collected during a dry season storm event, while
the remaining three may be collected during the wet season; in the Northeast, stormwater
sampling must be designed to attempt capture of the first flush during snow melt, with the
balance of sampling distributed throughout the year. The goal of sampling is to capture
meaningful data regarding the effectiveness of BMPs and the SWPPP more than to characterize
the temporal variability of the stormwater discharge. The reports summarizing these quarterly
visual stormwater examinations must be maintained on-site with the SWPPP.
The examination of the sample must be made in well-lit areas. The visual examination is
not required if there is insufficient rainfall or snow-melt to run off or if hazardous conditions
prevent sampling. Whenever practicable, the same individual should carry out the collection and
examination of discharges throughout the life of the permit to ensure the greatest degree of
consistency possible in recording observations.
When conducting a stormwater visual examination, the pollution prevention team or team
member should 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) should conduct an inspection of the area
of the site draining to the examined discharge to look for obvious sources of spilled oil, leaks,
etc. If a source can be located, then this information allows the facility operator to immediately
conduct a clean-up of the pollutant source, and/or to design a change to the SWPPP to eliminate
or minimize the contaminant source from recurring.
If the visual examination results in an observation of floating solids, the personnel should
carefully examine the solids to see if they are raw materials, waste materials, or other known
products stored or used at the site. If an unusual color or odor is sensed, the personnel should
attempt to compare the color or odor to the colors or odors of known chemicals and other
page 42
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
materials used at the facility. If the examination reveals a large amount of settled solids, the
personnel may check for unpaved, unstabilized areas or areas of erosion. If the examination
results in a cloudy sample that is very slow to settle out, the personnel should evaluate the site
draining to the discharge point for fine particulate material, such as dust, ash, or other pulverized,
ground, or powdered chemicals.
To be most effective, the personnel conducting the visual examination should be fully
knowledgeable about the SWPPP, the sources of on-site contaminants, the industrial activities
exposed to stormwater, and the day-to-day operations that may cause unexpected pollutant
releases.
If the visual examination results in a clean and clear sample of the stormwater discharge,
this may indicate that no pollutants are present and would be an indication of a high quality
result. However, the visual examination will not provide information about dissolved
contamination.
EPA believes that this quick and simple assessment will help permittees to determine the
plan effectiveness on a regular basis at very little cost. Although the visual examination cannot
assess the chemical properties of the stormwater discharged from the site, the examination will
provide meaningful results upon which the facility may act quickly. More frequent visual
examinations may be conducted to achieve better assessments of the effectiveness of the SWPPP.
The frequency of this visual examination will also allow for timely adjustments to be made to the
plan. If BMPs are performing ineffectively, corrective action must be implemented. A set of
tracking or follow-up procedures must be used to ensure that appropriate actions are taken in
response to the examinations. The visual examination is intended to be performed by members of
the pollution prevention team. This hands-on examination will enhance the staffs understanding
of the site's stormwater problems and the effects of the management practices that are included in
the plan.
Operators of inactive and unstaffed sites may exercise a visual monitoring waiver if they
eliminate all exposure of industrial activities and materials to stormwater and also document the
no exposure in the SWPPP. Operators with essentially identical outfalls (more fully described in
3.8) may also elect to undertake quarterly visual monitoring at one representative outfall.
3.13 Monitoring Required by a State or Tribe
Where a State or Tribe has imposed a numeric effluent limitation, has established a
wasteload allocation, or has stipulated specific monitoring requirements) as a condition for
certification under CWA §401, a minimum monitoring frequency of once per year has been
included in the final permit. This annual monitoring frequency would apply only if a State failed
to provide a monitoring frequency along with their conditional §401 certification.
page 43
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3.14 Collection and Analysis of Samples
Today's proposed MSGP retains the same requirements as the 1995 and 2000 MSGPs
regarding the type of sampling (Part 3.2.6.1). Certain industries have specialized requirements.
Permittees should check the industry-specific requirements in Part 4, Section A through Section
AD to the permit to confirm these requirements. Grab samples may be used for all monitoring
unless otherwise stated. All such samples must be collected from the discharge resulting from a
storm event that is greater than 0.1 inch in magnitude and that occurs at least 72 hours from the
previously measurable (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm event. The required 72-hour storm
event interval may be waived by the permittee when the preceding measurable storm event did
not result in a measurable discharge from the facility. The 72-hour requirement may also be
waived by the permittee where the permittee documents that less than a 72-hour interval is
representative for local storm events during the season when sampling is being conducted. The
grab sample must be taken during the first 30 minutes of the discharge. If the collection of a grab
sample during the first 30 minutes is impracticable, a grab sample can be taken during the first
hour of the discharge, and the discharger must submit with the monitoring report a description of
why a grab sample during the first 30 minutes was impracticable. At least one grab is required.
When the discharge to be sampled contains both stormwater and non-stormwater, the facility
must sample the stormwater component of the discharge at a point upstream of the location
where the non-stormwater mixes with the stormwater, if practicable.
3.15 Storm Event Data
Information on the sampled storm event must be documented (Part 3.2.6.2), and must
include date and duration of the storm event(s) sampled, rainfall measurements or estimates of
the event that generated runoff, the duration between the storm event and the previous event that
produced measurable runoff (greater than 0.1 inch), and an estimate of the total volume of the
discharge samples.
3.16 Adverse Weather Conditions
When truly adverse weather conditions make sampling dangerous, event monitoring may
be postponed to the next runoff event (Part 3.2.6.3). This provision applies only to serious
weather conditions such as lightning, flash flooding, and hurricanes. This provision should not be
used as an excuse for not conducting sampling under conditions associated with more typical
storm events. This provision does not apply to difficult logistical conditions, such as remote
facilities with few employees or discharge locations that are difficult to access. This provision
applies to all monitoring requirements of MSGP 2006.
3.17 National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of "Federal undertakings" on historic properties that are either listed on, or
eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. The term "Federal undertaking" is
page 44
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
defined in the existing NHPA regulations to include any project, activity, or program under the
direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency that can result in changes in the character or use
of historic properties, if any such historic properties are located in the area of potential effects for
that project, activity, or program. See 36 CFR 802(o). Historic properties are defined in the
NHPA regulations to include prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or
objects that are included in, or are eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic
Places. See 36 CFR 802(e).
Federal undertakings include EPA's issuance of general NPDES permits, including the
Multi-Sector General Permit. As part of the EPA's own obligations under the NHPA, applicants
seeking coverage under the MSGP are required to make certain certifications regarding the
potential effects of their stormwater discharge, allowable non-storm water discharge, and
discharge-related activities on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places.
In light of NHPA requirements, EPA included a provision in the eligibility requirements
of the 1995 and 2000 MSGP for the consideration of the effects to historic properties. The 2000
MSGP further enhanced the protection of historic properties required under the 1995 MSGP by
making permit coverage available only if:
Stormwater, allowable non-stormwater discharges, and "discharge-related activities"
did not affect historic properties; or
The applicant obtained, and was in compliance with, a written agreement between the
applicant and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer (THPO) that outlines all measures to be taken by the applicant to
mitigate or prevent adverse effects to historic property. See Part 1.2.3.7, 65 FR 64746
(September 30, 2000).
Discharge-related activities are defined to include activities which cause, contribute to, or
result in stormwater and allowable non-stormwater point source discharges, and measures such
as the siting, construction and operation of best management practices (BMPs) to control, reduce,
or prevent pollution in the discharges. Discharge-related activities are included to ensure
compliance with NHPA requirements to consider the effects of activities which are related to the
activity which is permitted, i.e., the stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Because this
change was minor, EPA relied on its 1995 and 1998 consultations with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation as its basis for reissuance of the 2000 MSGP.
EPA consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers prior to the proposal of MSGP 2006. The
discussion included possible scenarios where stormwater discharges, allowable non-stormwater
discharges, and discharge-related activities may impact historic properties. It was determined that
subsurface historic artifacts, records, or remains would have the only potential to be affected.
These historic properties would be impacted if the ground was physically disturbed while
constructing, installing, or modifying selected best management practices (BMPs) that are less
than 1 acre in size. In general, if the operator's activities do not disturb the subsurface of the
page 45
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
ground the operator will not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, and may
certify eligibility under criterion A.
Facilities seeking coverage under MSGP 2006 that cannot certify compliance with the
NHPA requirements must submit individual permit applications to the permitting authority. For
facilities already covered by the existing MSGP, the deadline for the individual applications is
the same as that for NOIs requesting coverage under the reissued MSGP (90 days after the
effective date for MSGP 2006).
3.18 Endangered Species Act
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) (both of these federal agencies are collectively known as the "Services"), that
any Federal actions carried out by the Agency (e.g., EPA-issued permits authorizing discharges
to waters of the United States) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species
that are federally-listed as endangered or threatened ("listed"), or result in the adverse
modification or destruction of habitat that is federally-designated as critical ("critical habitat").
See 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), 50 CFR 402 and 40 CFR 122.49(c).
FWS and NMFS are responsible for administration of the ESA and as such are
responsible for maintaining a list of protected species and critical habitat. Once listed as
endangered or threatened, a species is afforded the full range of protections available under the
ESA, including prohibitions on killing, harming or otherwise taking a species. In certain
instances, FWS or NMFS may establish a critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species
as a means to further protect those species. Critical habitats are areas determined to be essential
for the conservation of a species and may not necessarily be in an area currently occupied by the
species. Some, but not all, listed species have designated critical habitat. Exact locations of such
critical habitat are provided in the Services regulations at 50 CFR Parts 17 and 226.
EPA began conducting informal consultation with the Services on December 8, 2004 to
achieve concurrence with EPA's finding of no likelihood of adverse effects on threatened and
endangered species and critical habitat resulting from the issuance of the MSGP 2006. EPA is
using a permitting approach similar to the endangered species procedures and requirements in the
Construction General Permit, effective July 1, 2003, but with clarifications and slight
modifications to meet the needs of industrial dischargers.
Operators also have an independent ESA obligation to ensure that any of their activities
do not result in prohibited "takes" of listed species. (Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person
from "taking" a listed species [e.g., harassing or harming it] with limited exceptions. See ESA
Sec 9; 16 U.S.C. §1538.) This prohibition generally applies to private individuals, businesses and
government entities. Many of the measures required in the MSGP and in these instructions to
protect species may also assist operators in ensuring that their industrial activities (as opposed to
their stormwater discharges) do not result in a prohibited take of species in violation of section 9
of the ESA. Operators who intend to undertake industrial activities in areas that harbor
page 46
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
endangered and threatened species may need to be protected from potential takings liability under
ESA section 9 by obtaining either an ESA section 10 permit or by requesting coverage under an
individual permit and participating in the section 7 consultation process. Operators unsure of
what is needed for takings protection should confer with the appropriate FWS or NMFS office.
As with previous stormwater permits, coverage is only available if stormwater and
allowable non-stormwater discharges and "discharge-related activities" associated with industrial
activity, as defined in Appendix A, will not adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
"Discharge-related activities" are defined to include activities which cause, contribute to or result
in stormwater and allowable non-stormwater point source discharges, and measures such as the
siting, construction and operation of best management practices (BMPs), to control, reduce or
prevent pollution in the discharges. Discharge-related activities are included for compliance with
the ESA requirement to consider the effects of activities which are related to the activity being
permitted, i.e., the stormwater and allowable non-stormwater discharges.
In addition, operators seeking coverage under MSGP 2006 must certify on their NOI
forms that they are eligible for coverage under one of the following six criteria options (see Part
1.2.4.6 of the permit):
A. There are no endangered or threatened species or critical habitat present,
determined after checking the various references given in the MSGP for the
presence of species or habitat in proximity to the facility. "In proximity" refers to
species being located in the stormwater and allowable non-stormwater discharge
flow path, or down-gradient areas from the industrial activities to the point of
discharge into the receiving water, including around the discharge outfall. A
species is also in proximity if it is located in the area of a site where discharge-
related activities occur.
B. In the course of a separate federal action involving the facility (e.g., EPA
processing an application for an individual NPDES permit, issuance of a CWA
Section 404 wetlands dredge and fill permit, etc.), formal or informal consultation
with one or both of the Services under Section 7 of the ESA has been concluded.
The consultation must have addressed the effects of the stormwater discharges,
allowable non-stormwater discharges, and discharge-related activities on listed
species and critical habitat. The result must have been either a no jeopardy
opinion or a written concurrence by the Service(s) on a finding that the
stormwater discharges, allowable non-stormwater discharges, and discharge-
related activities are not likely to jeopardize listed species or critical habitat.
C. The activities are authorized under Section 10 of the ESA and that authorization
addresses the effects of the stormwater discharges, allowable non-stormwater
discharges, and discharge-related activities on listed species and critical habitat.
D. The operator, after determining listed species or critical habitat are nearby, has
coordinated with the appropriate Service(s) to address the effects of the
stormwater discharges, allowable non-stormwater discharges, and discharge-
page 47
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
elated activities on listed species and critical habitat. The result of the
coordination must be a written statement from the Services that there are not
likely to be any adverse affects to federally-listed species or Federally-designated
critical habitat. All prerequisites or stipulations resulting from the coordination
become permit requirements.
E. The operator, after determining listed species or critical habitat are nearby, has
evaluated the effects of the stormwater discharges, allowable non-storm water
discharges, and discharge-related activities on the species / habitat and concluded
there will not likely be any adverse effects. To arrive at this conclusion, the
operator must consider whether there is potential jeopardy to species / habitat and
what measures are needed to minimize the jeopardy. Typically this would employ
the skills of staff members or consultants with expertise in the biology and needs
of the species / habitat in question. Rigorous documentation to support the
Criterion E selection must be included in the SWPPP.
F. The stormwater and allowable non-stormwater discharges and discharge-related
activities were already addressed in another operator's certification of eligibility
under Criteria A - E above, provided both facilities' activities and sites are
addressed. By certifying eligibility under this Part, an operator agrees to comply
with any measures or controls upon which the other operator's certification was
based.
All the options listed above except D are similar to the eligibility provisions of previous
stormwater general permits. Option D was added to allow operators to certify eligibility after
interacting with the Services independently as part of their endangered species due diligence.
Option F, while not likely to be widely used, is meant for situations such as airports where one
operator (e.g., the airport authority) has covered the entire airport through its certification.
Appendix E of the MSGP 2006 provides instructions for determining whether a facility is
eligible for permit coverage with regard to endangered species (i.e., if and how any of the six
eligibility criteria can be met). The process and results of the endangered species investigation
must be documented and included in the SWPPP. This information, including any other relevant
piece of information such as the SWPPP, may be requested by the Services or EPA for review
before permit coverage is authorized, or by an inspector after the fact.
Operators who cannot determine if they meet one of the endangered species eligibility
criteria cannot submit an NOI to gain coverage under the MSGP 2006; instead they must apply to
EPA for an individual NPDES permit. As appropriate, EPA will conduct an ESA section 7
consultation when issuing individual permits. If there are concerns that MSGP coverage for a
particular facility is not sufficiently protective of species / habitat, EPA or the Services, through
the EPA, may hold up discharge authorization until such concerns are adequately addressed.
Regardless of an operator's eligibility certification under one of the six criteria, EPA may require
an application for an individual permit on the basis of possible jeopardy to species /habitat.
page 48
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3.19 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Requirements
Like the 1995 and 2000 MSGPs, MSGP 2006 requires that all facilities that intend to be
covered by the MSGP for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity prepare and
implement a SWPPP. The MSGP addresses stormwater pollution prevention plan requirements
for a number of categories of industries. These common requirements may be amended or further
clarified in the sector-specific SWPPP requirements, which are found in Part 4 of the proposed
permit. These industry-specific requirements are additive for facilities where co-located
industrial activities occur.
BMPs should be a suite of stormwater controls that are effective at pollution prevention
and reduction AND are also economically reasonable and appropriate in light of current industry
practice for your type of facility. "Best" refers to cost-effective measures using controls
appropriate for the situation that will result in the necessary pollutant reductions. Prevention
measures, such as keeping areas clean, storing materials inside, and properly maintaining
equipment, will usually be sufficient. EPA does not typically expect or recommend
implementation of highly engineered, complex treatment systems for most industrial sectors or
pollutants, although in some cases more advanced treatment may be necessary, such as to address
water quality standards exceedances. This would most likely be the case where a wasteload
allocation in a total maximum daily load (TMDL) approved or established by EPA called for
treatment of stormwater to address a particularly difficult water quality problem. EPA does not
require the use of a registered professional engineer to prepare the SWPPP, but this may be
independently required under State law and/or local ordinance.
3.20 Pollution Prevention Team
As a first step in the process of developing and implementing a SWPPP, permittees are
required to identify a qualified individual or team of individuals to be responsible for developing
the plan and assisting the facility or plant manager in its implementation (Part 2.1.1). In selecting
members of the team, the facility manager should draw on the expertise of all relevant
departments within the facility to ensure that all aspects of facility operations are considered
when the plan is developed. The plan must clearly describe the responsibilities of each team
member as they relate to specific components of the plan, and it must be readily accessible to all
team members either electronically or in paper format. In addition to enhancing the quality of
communication between team members and other personnel, clear delineation of responsibilities
will ensure that every aspect of the plan is addressed by a specified individual or group of
individuals. A pollution prevention team may consist of one individual where appropriate (e.g.,
in certain small businesses with limited stormwater pollution potential).
3.21 Site Description and Receiving Waters and Wetlands
Each SWPPP must describe activities, materials, and physical features of the facility that
may contribute significant amounts of pollutants to stormwater runoff or, during periods of dry
weather, result in pollutant discharges through the separate storm sewers or stormwater drainage
page 49
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
systems that drain the facility. This assessment of stormwater pollution risk will support
subsequent efforts to identify and set priorities for necessary changes in materials, materials
management practices, or site features, as well as aiding in the selection of appropriate structural
and nonstructural control techniques. Some operators may find that significant amounts of
pollutants are running onto the facility property. Such operators should identify and address the
contaminated run-on in the SWPPP. If the run-on cannot be addressed or diverted by the
permittee, the permitting authority should be notified. If necessary, the permitting authority may
require the operator of the adjacent facility to obtain a permit.
The site description (Part 2.1.2) should include activities at the facility, an estimate of
impervious surface area, precipitation information, a general location map and a site map. The
site map must include a number of features including the location of outfalls covered by the
permit (or by other NPDES permits), the pattern of stormwater drainage, an indication of the
types of discharges contained in the drainage areas of the outfalls, structural features that control
pollutants in runoff,1 surface water bodies (including wetlands, intermittent streams, dry sloughs,
and aroyos), places where significant materials2 are exposed to rainfall and runoff, and locations
of major spills and leaks that occurred in the 3 years prior to the date of developing or updating
your SWPPP. The map also must show areas where the following activities take place: fueling,
vehicle and equipment maintenance and/or cleaning, loading and unloading, material storage
(including tanks or other vessels used for liquid or waste storage), material processing, and waste
disposal. The map must indicate the direction of stormwater flow and the pollutants likely to be
in the discharge. Flows with a significant potential to cause soil erosion also must be identified.
You must also identify all surface waters to which you discharge stormwater (Part 2.1.3).
3.22 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources
The description of potential pollution sources should clearly address activities, materials,
and physical features of the facility that have a reasonable potential to contribute significant
amounts of pollutants to stormwater (Part 2.1.4). Any such activities, materials or features must
be addressed by the measures and controls subsequently described in the plan. In conducting the
assessment, the facility operator must consider the following activities: loading and unloading
operations, outdoor storage activities, outdoor manufacturing or processing activities, significant
dust- or particulate-generating processes, and on-site waste disposal practices (Part 2.1.4.1). The
assessment must list any significant pollutants (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand, suspended
solids) associated with each source (Part 2.1.4.2).
'Nonstructural features such as grass swales and vegetative buffer strips also should be shown.
Significant materials include, but are not limited to, the following: raw materials; fuels; 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 the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); any chemical the facility is required to report pursuant to EPCRA
section 313; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste products, such as ashes, slag, and sludge, that have the potential to be
released with stormwater discharges. (See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(8).)
page 50
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3.23 Significant Spills and Leaks
The plan must include a list of any significant spills and leaks of toxic or hazardous
pollutants that occurred in the 3 years prior to the date the SWPPP is developed or amended (Part
2.1.4.3). 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). Significant spills may also
include releases of oil or hazardous substances that are not in excess of reporting requirements
and releases of materials that are not classified as oil or hazardous substances.
The listing 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 the facility operator as she or he examines existing spill prevention
and response procedures and develops any additional procedures necessary to fulfill the
requirements set forth in Part 2.1.5.4.
3.24 Elimination of Unauthorized Discharges
Each SWPPP must include a certification, signed by an authorized person, that discharges
from the site have been tested or evaluated for the presence of non-stormwater discharges, and
that all unauthorized discharges have been eliminated (Part 2.1.4.4). The certification must
describe any test and/or evaluation conducted to detect such discharges, the results of those
evaluations, and measures taken to eliminate any unauthorized discharges that were discovered.
Acceptable test or evaluation techniques include dye tests, television surveillance, visual
observation of outfalls or other appropriate locations during dry weather, water balance
calculations, and analysis of piping and drainage schematics.3 A combination of these
mechanisms may be necessary to complete a thorough evaluation.
When unauthorized discharges are discovered, the certification must also include a
description of how those discharges were eliminated. 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.
EPA recognizes that full certification might not be feasible where facility personnel do
not have access to an outfall, manhole, or other point of discharge. The permit allows less than
full certification provided that the plan must describe why certification was not feasible.
Permittees that are not able to certify that discharges have been evaluated and unauthorized
discharges eliminated must so notify EPA within 14 days after submitting the NOI. Failure to
certify that unauthorized discharges have been eliminated, or alternately provide the appropriate
notification that certification cannot be completed, is a permit violation.
3In general, smoke tests should not be used for evaluating the discharge of non-stormwater to a separate storm sewer
as many sources of non-stormwater typically pass through a trap that would limit the effectiveness of the smoke test.
page 51
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3.25 Monitoring Data
Any existing data on the quality or quantity of stormwater discharges from the facility
must be described in the plan (Part 2.1.4.7). At a minimum the operator should include data
gathered in the 5 years prior to development or update of this SWPPP, including discharge
monitoring data collected in fulfillment of MSGP 2000 requirements. These data may be useful
for locating sources and causes of stormwater pollutants.
3.26 Selection and Implementation of Stormwater Controls
Following completion of the source identification and assessment phase, the permit
requires the permittee to evaluate, select, and describe the pollution prevention measures, and
other controls that will be implemented at the facility. BMPs include processes, procedures,
schedules of activities, prohibitions on practices, installed devices, structures, vegetation and
other management practices that prevent or minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater
runoff.
Sections 402(p)(3)(A) and 301 of the Clean Water Act require that permits for discharges
of industrial stormwater meet all applicable provisions for technology-based and water quality-
based controls. Best Management Practices are considered Best Available Technology
economically achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Technology (BCT) for most stormwater
discharges. BMPs are also usually adequate to meet the water quality requirements of the Act.
Therefore proper design and implementation of BMPs form the foundation of stormwater
controls. MSGP 2006 does stipulate a number of sector-specific BMPs (Part 4), and also requires
all operators to implement certain types of BMPs (Part 2.1.5). Each operator is required to design
effective controls for the relevant set of pollutants, operations and site conditions. To achieve this
each operator has some discretion in designing a suite of BMPs for his/her industrial operation.
Failure to adequately design, implement or maintain appropriate BMPs is a violation of the
permit.
EPA emphasizes the implementation of pollution prevention measures and BMPs that
reduce possible pollutant discharges at the source. Pollution prevention measures include
preventive maintenance, chemical substitution, spill prevention, good housekeeping, training,
eliminating exposure, diverting stormwater around handling and storage areas, and proper
materials management. Where such practices are not appropriate or do not effectively reduce
pollutant discharges, other economically reasonable and appropriate measures may be necessary.
The SWPPP must discuss how selected controls and practices will, individually and in
conjunction with each other, address one or more of the potential pollution sources identified in
the plan. The plan must also include a schedule specifying how each control or practice will be
implemented, including the schedule of activities where appropriate.
page 52
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3.27 Required Stormwater Controls
Good Housekeeping (Part 2.1.5.1). Good housekeeping involves using practical, cost-
effective methods to maintain a clean and orderly facility and keep contaminants out
of stormwater discharges. It includes establishing protocols to reduce the possibility
of mishandling chemicals or equipment, and training employees in good
housekeeping techniques. Good housekeeping measures are often quite simple and
practical, and include tasks such as sweeping loading docks on a regular basis;
keeping dumpster lids closed; and cleaning up filings, shavings and sawdust. These
protocols must be described in the plan and communicated to appropriate plant
personnel.
Eliminating and Minimizing Exposure (Part 2.1.5.2). Protecting potential pollutant
sources from exposure to stormwater is an important control option. Operators should
try to maximize opportunities to store materials and conduct industrial activities, such
as loading and unloading, inside or under cover. Elimination of all exposure to
stormwater may also make the facility eligible for the "No Exposure Certification"
exclusion from permitting at 40 CFR 122.26(g).
Preventive Maintenance (Part 2.1.5.3). Permittees must develop a preventive
maintenance program that involves regular inspection and maintenance of stormwater
management devices and other equipment and systems. The program description must
identify the devices, equipment, and systems that will be inspected; provide a
schedule for inspections and tests; and address appropriate adjustment, cleaning,
repair, or replacement of devices, equipment, and systems. For stormwater
management devices such as catch basins and oil and water separators, the preventive
maintenance program must provide for periodic removal of debris to ensure that the
devices are operating efficiently. For other equipment and systems, the program must
reveal and enable the correction of conditions that could cause breakdowns or failures
that may result in the release of pollutants.
Spill Prevention and Response Procedures (Part 2.1.5.4). Based on an assessment of
possible spill scenarios, permittees must specify appropriate material handling
procedures, storage requirements, containment or diversion equipment, and spill
cleanup procedures that will minimize the potential for spills and, in the event of a
spill, enable proper and timely response. Areas and activities that typically pose a high
risk for spills include loading and unloading areas, storage areas, process activities,
and waste disposal activities. These activities and areas, and their accompanying
drainage points, must be described in the plan. For a spill prevention and response
program to be effective, employees must clearly understand the proper procedures and
requirements and have the appropriate spill response supplies and equipment readily
available.
Routine Facility Inspections (Part 2.1.5.5). In addition to the comprehensive site
evaluation, facilities are required to conduct periodic inspections of designated
equipment and areas of the facility. Inspections are to be conducted monthly unless
another frequency is justified in the SWPPP. Industry-specific requirements for such
inspections, if any, are set forth in Part 4. When inspections are required, qualified
page 53
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
personnel must be identified to conduct the inspections at appropriate intervals
specified in the plan. A set of tracking or follow-up procedures must be used to ensure
that appropriate actions are taken in response to the inspections. Records of
inspections must be maintained. These periodic inspections are different from the
comprehensive site evaluation, although the former may be incorporated into the
latter. Equipment, area, or other inspections are typically visual and are normally
conducted on a regular basis (e.g., daily inspections of loading areas).
• Employee Training (Part 2.1.5.6). The SWPPP must describe a program for informing
personnel at all levels of responsibility of the components and goals of the SWPPP.
The training program should address topics such as good housekeeping, materials
management, and spill response procedures. When appropriate, contractor personnel
also must be trained in relevant aspects of stormwater pollution prevention. A
schedule for conducting training must be provided in the plan. EPA recommends that
facilities conduct training at least annually. However, more frequent training might be
necessary at facilities with high employee turnover or where employee participation is
essential to carrying out the SWPPP.
Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (Part 2.1.5.7). The SWPPP must identify areas
that, because of topography, activities, soils, cover materials, or other factors, have a
high potential for significant soil erosion. The plan must identify measures that will
be implemented to limit erosion in these areas.
Management of Runoff (Part 2.1.5.8). The plan must contain a description of
stormwater management practices that divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise manage
stormwater runoff to reduce contact with pollutants and reduce the discharge of
pollutants. Appropriate measures may include vegetative swales, collection and reuse
of stormwater, inlet controls, snow management, and infiltration practices.
Salt Storage Piles or Piles Containing Salt (Part 2.1.5.9). The plan must contain a
description of how the salt pile will be covered or enclosed. The plan must also
include a description of how materials and runoff from handling activities, i.e. adding
to or removing from the pile, will be managed.
Sector Specific BMPs (Part 2.1.5.10 referencing sector specific sections of Part 4).
The plan must include a description of all BMP requirements stipulated in Part 4 of
the permit.
Controls on other Specific Activities (Part 2.1.5.11). The proposed MSGP includes a
requirement to implement controls on solid materials, including floating debris. In
addition, off-site tracking of raw, final, or waste materials or sediment and the
generation of dust must be minimized. Tracking or blowing of raw, final, or waste
materials from areas of no exposure to exposed areas must be minimized.
All other necessary controls (Part 2.1.5.12). The operator must determine if BMPs, in
addition to those in 2.1.5.1 through 2.1.5.11, are necessary to adequately control
pollutants in stormwater discharges to meet the provisions of the permit. If so, the
SWPPP must include a description of those measures.
page 54
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3.28 Controls for Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges
Where an allowable non-storm water discharge has been identified, appropriate controls
for that discharge must be included in the SWPPP (Part 2.1.4.5). In many cases, the same types
of controls 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
controls.
3.29 Special Requirements for Discharges Associated with Specific Industrial Activity
A number of changes to SWPPP requirements were introduced for specific industrial
sectors. The sector-specific sections of Part 4 of the proposed MSGP 2006 provide requirements
for each industrial sector. The following describe notable changes to industrial sectors:
Sector G - Metal Mining. Added the construction requirements applicable to the mining
section.
Sector I - Oil and Gas Refining. Clarification on limitations of coverage in 1.3.1 for
discharges subject to effluent limitations guidelines of 40 CFR 419 and 435, and added
discussion of why most Sector I stormwater discharges are not eligible for MSGP coverage.
Changed the title and added discussion regarding contact with wastewater pollutants at
exploration and production facilities in the place of "Good Housekeeping".
Sector J - Mineral Mining. Many of the same changes from Sector G and Construction
General Permit were incorporated here.
Sector K - Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage, or Disposal Facilities. For facilities
identified under activity code HZ, primary comments are in limitation on coverage for
commercial TSDF facilities, and several are region specific.
Sector Y - Rubber. Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Industries. The most significant changes added industrial dischargers active in the manufacture of
Pens, Pencils, and other Artists' Materials (SIC 3951-3955, except 3952 as Specified in Sector
C); Costume Jewelry, Costume Novelties, Buttons, and Miscellaneous Notions, Except Precious
Metal (SIC 3961, 3965); and Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (SIC 3991-3999)
Sector AC - Electronic and Electrical Equipment and Components. Photographic and
Optical Goods. Revisions included adding the broader activity description for manufacture of
electrical and electronic equipment and components to the industrial activities covered under
sector AC in AC.2.5, and added specific SIC codes to Table AC-1.
Sector AD - Stormwater Discharges Designated by the Director as Requiring Permits.
Clarification regarding facilities identified as needing permits, but not falling into one of the
established industrial sectors.
page 55
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
3.30 Mercury Switch Removal
For the MSGP 2006, EPA is considering a requirement for Sectors M (Automobile
Salvage Yards) and N (Scrap Recycling and Waste Recycling Facilities) to properly remove,
store and dispose of mercury-containing switches from automobiles. BMP options could include:
(a) pop out mercury-containing "capsules" from hood and trunk unit; (b) remove anti-lock
braking system units that contain mercury switches; (c) store switches and ABS units indoors in a
secure container marked "Universal Waste" until sufficient numbers are collected to be recycled;
(d) send mercury switches as Universal Waste to a mercury recycler that is permitted under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or to the state mercury switch collection
facility; and, (e) provide employee training for the management of mercury switches.
For this requirement a readily available practice for facilities in Sectors M and N would
be to participate in, or to purchase car hulks that have come through, state programs that ensure
mercury switch removal. Consideration of these provisions for the stormwater permit is part of
EPA's overall effort to avoid mercury releases related to the recycling of automobiles. EPA has
been examining state programs and other voluntary and regulatory approaches with state
regulators, as well as with representatives of affected industries and other stakeholders.
EPA could include this requirement for all relevant facilities in Sectors M and N, or could
apply this provision only to facilities that crush automobiles, since this is the process that releases
mercury to the environment. EPA solicits comment on whether or not mercury switch removal
should be a requirement of MSGP 2006, and if so, how broadly it should be applied.
3.31 State or Tribal Requirements
Part 5 of the final MSGP 2006 will contain conditions provided by States and Tribes as
part of Clean Water Act § 401 certification. Those provisions are not included in the proposed
MSGP 2006, but will be included in the final MSGP 2006. Any requirement stipulated by a State
or Tribe in the final permit must be incorporated into the SWPPP and implemented.
3.32 Maintenance
All BMPs identified in the SWPPP must be maintained at all times in effective operating
condition (Part 2.2).
3.33 Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation
Today's proposed MSGP requires that the SWPPP describe the scope of the
comprehensive site evaluation (Part 3.1). Inspections must be conducted by qualified personnel,
and the inspection team must include at least one member of the Pollution Prevention Team.
Qualified personnel are those who possess the knowledge and skills to assess conditions and
activities that could impact stormwater quality at your facility, and who can also evaluate the
page 56
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
effectiveness of BMPs selected. While EPA does not stipulate specific qualifications for these
personnel, a combination of relevant education, training and experience is necessary.
Note that the comprehensive site evaluations are not the same as routine inspections.
Routine inspections are relatively frequent and informal checks to ensure that problems are not
developing. Comprehensive site evaluations, as the term implies, include a much more in-depth
review of the site and all operations, as they relate to stormwater management and the
requirements of the SWPPP. However, in the instances when frequencies of routine inspections
and the comprehensive site compliance evaluation overlap, they may be combined to allow for
efficiency as long as the requirements for both types of inspections are met. The plan must
indicate the frequency of comprehensive evaluations, which must be at least once a year.
Material handling and storage areas and other potential sources of pollution must be visually
inspected for evidence of actual or potential pollutant discharges to the drainage system.
Inspectors must also observe erosion controls and structural stormwater management devices to
ensure that each is operating correctly. Equipment needed to implement the SWPPP, such as that
used during spill response activities, must be inspected to confirm that it is readily available and
in proper working order.
The results of each comprehensive site evaluation must be documented in a report signed
by an authorized company official. The report must describe the scope of the comprehensive site
evaluation, the personnel making the comprehensive site evaluation, the date(s) of the
comprehensive site evaluation, and any major observations relating to implementation of the
SWPPP.
Based on the results of each comprehensive site evaluation, the description in the plan of
potential pollution sources and measures and controls must be revised as appropriate within 14
calendar days after each comprehensive site evaluation. If existing BMPs need to be modified or
if additional BMPs are necessary, implementation must be completed before the next anticipated
storm, or not more than 60 days after completion of the comprehensive site evaluation unless this
time frame is extended by EPA. EPA reiterates that this time frame is not a grace period from
permit violations.
3.34 Signature
The SWPPP must be signed and certified in accordance with Appendix B, section 11 of
the permit.
3.35 Purpose of Corrective Action Schedules
Several provisions of MSGP 2006, including Parts 2.3 and 3.3, stipulate time limits for
implementing actions to remedy deficiencies. EPA emphasizes that these time frames are not
grace periods within which an operator is relieved of any liability for a permit violation. If the
original inadequacy constitutes a permit violation, then that violation is not deferred by the time
frame EPA has allotted for corrective action. The time limits are those that EPA considers
reasonable for making the necessary repairs or modifications, and are included specifically so
page 57
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
that inadequacies are not allowed to persist indefinitely. Failure to take the necessary corrective
action within the stipulated time limit constitutes an additional and independent permit violation.
3.36 Reporting
EPA has included reporting requirements in MSGP 2006 that ensure that EPA, and other
parties as necessary, are made aware of potential water quality problems. Discharge monitoring
reports must be submitted to EPA no later than 30 days after all analytical data from a monitoring
event are received. This is a change from MSGP 2000 where operators could submit results of
multiple monitoring events once per year.
EPA will have on-line electronic reporting associated with the e-NOI system by the time
MSGP 2006 is finalized, so that permittees may electronically report discharge monitoring data.
EPA also intends to develop electronic reporting for follow-up monitoring reports (Part 3.4) and
reports of spills and other unauthorized discharges (Part 3.5.1), though these components of the
e-reporting system may not be available until a later date.
Follow-up monitoring results should be reported via the electronic system (when
available) or in writing to the appropriate EPA Regional Office (Part 3.7) within 30 days of
receiving the results. The report should include the permit identification number; facility name,
address and location; receiving water; monitoring data from this and the preceding monitoring
event(s); an explanation of the situation; what has been done and shall be done to further reduce
pollutants in the discharge; and an appropriate contact name and phone number.
In addition, MSGP 2006 clarifies that spills and other unauthorized discharges must be
reported to EPA. In the case where discharges may affect drinking water supplies, recreational
waters, elicit fish kills, or may otherwise endanger human health or the environment the
discharge must be reported orally to the appropriate EPA regional office within 24 hours from
the time or discovery, followed by an electronic or written report (per the requirements of
Appendix B, section 12(F)) within 5 days. EPA also encourages operators to report the releases
that may have human health ramifications to the appropriate local authorities, e.g., public water
supply operator, health department. EPA requests comments on whether or not reporting to these
local authorities should be encouraged or required.
page 58
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
4. Eligible Discharges
4.1 Areas Covered
Today's proposed MSGP would authorize discharges associated with industrial activities
in areas where EPA is the permitting authority (see Appendix C of the permit).
Proposed Coverage for Arizona Non-Indian Lands
The 2006 MSGP is being proposed to cover non-Indian lands in the State of Arizona even
though EPA authorized the State of Arizona to administer the NPDES permit program in late
2002. EPA's 2002 decision to grant program authorization to the State was challenged by two
petitions which contended that the decision was inconsistent with the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act. On August 22, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with
the petitioners and vacated EPA's decision to authorize the State of Arizona to administer the
program. Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA. No. 03-71439.
The Court decision has not yet become effective pending the outcome of the requests for
a rehearing which have been filed by EPA and certain other parties. However, if the Court
decision does become effective the authority to issue and enforce NPDES permits in non-Indian
lands in Arizona would revert to EPA.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has been administering
EPA's 2000 MSGP since ADEQ assumed responsibility for NPDES permitting in 2002. ADEQ
is also in process of issuing its own MSGP to replace the 2000 MSGP. However, ADEQ could
no longer continue its program if the Court decision were to go into effect.
In view of the large number of industrial facilities subject to stormwater permitting, and
the similarity of most discharges, EPA believes that general permitting is the most appropriate
permitting option for most facilities. EPA is proposing the 2006 MSGP in non-Indian lands in
Arizona as a contingency measure to ensure that general permitting continues to be available if
the Court decision does take effect. It is still possible that the Court decision may be modified or
reversed as a result of future requests for rehearing filed with the Court. If so, EPA's proposed
MSGP may never be finalized for non-Indian lands in Arizona, and the ADEQ permitting
program could continue.
4.2 Industrial Sectors Covered
Today's proposed MSGP would authorize stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity from the categories of facilities shown in Table 2.
page 59
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Table 2. Industrial Sectors and Subsectors in Proposed MSGP 2006
Subsector
SIC code
Activity represented
Sector A. Timber Products
1
2421
General Sawmills and Planing Mills
2
2491
Wood Preserving
3
2411
Log Storage and Handling
4
2426
Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills
2429
Special Product Sawmills, Not Elsewhere Classified
2431-2439 (except
2434)
Millwork, Veneer, Plywood, and Structural Wood (see Sector
W)
2448, 2449
Wood Containers
2451,2452
Wood Buildings and Mobile Homes
2493
Reconstituted Wood Products
2499
Wood Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
Sector B. Paper and Allied Products
1
2611
Pulp Mills
2
2621
Paper Mills
3
2631
Paperboard Mills
4
2652-2657
Paperboard Containers and Boxes
5
2671-2679
Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, Except Containers
and Boxes
Sector C. Chemical and Allied Products
1
2812-2819
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
2
2821-2824
Plastics Materials and Synthetic Resins, Synthetic Rubber,
Cellulosic and Other Manmade Fibers, Except Glass
3
2833-2836
Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical Products; Pharmaceutical
Preparations; in Vitro and in Vivo Diagnostic Substances;
Biological Products, Except Diagnostic Substances
4
2841-2844
Soaps, Detergents, and Cleaning Preparations; Perfumes,
Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations
5
2851
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products
6
2861-2869
Industrial Organic Chemicals
7
2873-2879
Agricultural Chemicals, Including Facilities That Make
Fertilizer Solely from Leather Scraps and Leather Dust
8
2891-2899
Miscellaneous Chemical Products
9
3952 (limited to
list)
Inks and Paints, Including China Painting Enamels, India Ink,
Drawing Ink, Platinum Paints for Burnt Wood or Leather
Work, Paints for China Painting, Artist's Paints, and Artist's
Watercolors
Sector D. Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials and Lubricants
1
2951,2952
Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials
page 60
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Table 2. Industrial Sectors and Subsectors in Proposed MSGP 2006
Subsector
SIC code
Activity represented
2
2992, 2999
Miscellaneous Products of Petroleum and Coal
Sector E. Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Products
1
3211
Flat Glass
3221, 3229
Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown
3231
Glass Products Made of Purchased Glass
3281
Cut Stone and Stone Products
3291-3292
Abrasive and Asbestos Products
3296
Mineral Wool
3299
Nonmetallic Mineral Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
2
3241
Hydraulic Cement
3
3251-3259
Structural Clay Products
3261-3269
Pottery and Related Products
3297
Non-Clay Refractories
4
3271-3275
Concrete, Gypsum, and Plaster Products
3295
Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated
Sector F. Primary Metals
1
3312-3317
Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills
2
3321-3325
Iron and Steel Foundries
3
3331-3339
Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals
4
3341
Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals
5
3351-3357
Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Nonferrous Metals
6
3363-3369
Nonferrous Foundries (Castings)
7
3398,3399
Miscellaneous Primary Metal Products
Sector G. Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing)
1
1011
Iron Ores
2
1021
Copper Ores
3
1031
Lead and Zinc Ores
4
1041,1044
Gold and Silver Ores
5
1061
Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium
6
1081
Metal Mining Services
7
1094, 1099
Miscellaneous Metal Ores
Sector H. Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities
NA
1221-1241
Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities
Sector I. Oil and Gas Extraction and Refining
1
1311
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
2
1321
Natural Gas Liquids
3
1381-1389
Oil and Gas Field Services
4
2911
Petroleum refineries
page 61
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Table 2. Industrial Sectors and Subsectors in Proposed MSGP 2006
Subsector
SIC code
Activity represented
Sector J. Mineral Mining and Dressing
1
1411
Dimension Stone
1422-1429
Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Rip Rap
1481
Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels
2
1442, 1446
Sand and Gravel
3
1455, 1459
Clay, Ceramic, and Refractory Materials
4
1474-1479
Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining
1499
Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels
Sector K. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
NA
HZ
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
Sector L. Landfills, Land Application Sites, and Open Dumps
NA
LF
Landfills, Land Application Sites, and Open Dumps
Sector M. Automobile Salvage Yards
NA
5015
Automobile Salvage Yards
Sector N. Scrap Recycling Facilities
NA
5093
Scrap Recycling Facilities
Sector 0. Steam Electric Generating Facilities
NA
SE
Steam Electric Generating Facilities
Sector P. Land Transportation and Warehousing
1
4011,4013
Railroad Transportation
2
4111-4173
Local and Highway Passenger Transportation
3
4212-4231
Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing
4
4311
United States Postal Service
5
5171
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Sector Q. Water Transportation
NA
4412-4499
Water Transportation
Sector R. Ship and Boat Building and Repairing Yards
NA
3731, 3732
Ship and Boat Building and Repairing Yards
Sector S. Air Transportation Facilities
NA
4512-4581
Air Transportation Facilities
Sector T. Treatment Works
NA
TW
Treatment Works
Sector U. Food and Kindred Products
1
2011-2015
Meat Products
2
2021-2026
Dairy Products
3
2032
Canned, Frozen, and Preserved Fruits, Vegetables, and Food
Specialties
4
2041-2048
Grain Mill Products
5
2051-2053
Bakery Products
page 62
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Table 2. Industrial Sectors and Subsectors in Proposed MSGP 2006
Subsector
SIC code
Activity represented
6
2061-2068
Sugar and Confectionery Products
7
2074-2079
Fats and Oils
8
2082-2087
Beverages
9
2091-2099
Miscellaneous Food Preparations and Kindred Products
2111-2141
Tobacco Products
Sector V. Textile Mills, Apparel, and Other Fabric Product Manufacturing; Leather and Leather
Products
1
2211-2299
Textile Mill Products
2
2311-2399
Apparel and Other Finished Products Made From Fabrics and
Similar Materials
3131-3199 (except
3111)
Leather and Leather Products, Except Leather Tanning and
Finishing (see Sector Z).
Sector W. Furniture and Fixtures
NA
2511-2599
Furniture and Fixtures
2434
Wood Kitchen Cabinets
Sector X. Printing and Publishing
NA
2711-2796
Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries
Sector Y. Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
1
3011
Tires and Inner Tubes
3021
Rubber and Plastics Footwear
3052, 3053
Gaskets, Packing and Sealing Devices, and Rubber and
Plastics Hose and Belting
3061, 3069
Fabricated Rubber Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
2
3081-3089
Miscellaneous Plastics Products
3931
Musical Instruments
3942-3949
Dolls, Toys, Games, and Sporting and Athletic Goods
3951-3955 (except
3952 as specified
in Sector C)
Pens, Pencils, and Other Artists' Materials
3961, 3965
Costume Jewelry, Costume Novelties, Buttons, and
Miscellaneous Notions, Except Precious Metal
3991-3999
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
Sector Z. Leather Tanning and Finishing
NA
3111
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Sector AA. Fabricated Metal Products
1
3411-3499
Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and
Transportation Equipment and Coating, Engraving, and
Allied Services
3911-3915
Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Ware
2
3479
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
page 63
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
Table 2. Industrial Sectors and Subsectors in Proposed MSGP 2006
Subsector
SIC code
Activity represented
Sector AB. Transportation Equipment, Industrial, and Commercial Machinery
NA
3511-3599 (except
3571-3579)
Industrial and Commercial Machinery (except Computer and
Office Equipment - see Sector AC)
NA
3711-3799 (except
3731, 3732)
Transportation Equipment (except Ship and Boat Building
and Repairing - see Sector R)
Sector AC. Electronic, Electrical, Photographic, and Optical Goods
NA
3612-3699
Electronic and Electrical Equipment and Components,
Except Computer Equipment
3812-3873
Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments;
Photographic and Optical Goods, Watches, and Clocks
3571-3579
Computer and Office Equipment
Sector AD. Reserved for Facilities Not Covered Under Other Sectors and Designated by the
Director
"NA" indicates industry sectors in which subdivision into subsectors was determined to be not applicable.
Although the Office of Management and Budget's North American Industry
Classification System is intended to replace the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification Code,
EPA has decided to continue using the 1987 SIC code system as the primary classification
system under the MSGP because the stormwater regulations (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)) refer to
these codes and because this code system identifies facilities adequately.
page 64
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
5. Cost Estimates
EPA has prepared an analysis of costs of complying with this permit. The analysis
includes low, average and high level facility costs and shows both the total costs and incremental
costs relative to the 2000 MSGP permit.
EPA observed that 3,656 facilities were covered by the 2000 MSGP in July, 2005. The
Agency used the same number of facilities to estimate costs for the 2006 permit. This was done
to look at changes in the permit and the impact of only those changes; in other words, the
analysis was performed such that the Agency could make like comparisons. However, there are
likely to be some additional permittees in the 2006 permit.
Initial EPA analysis indicated that average additional incremental cost to MSGP 2006
from MSGP 2000 will be approximately $60 per year. Based on specific laboratory cost
information obtained after the conclusion of this analysis, EPA believes that this estimate is
conservative, and costs will be somewhat less. EPA estimates that the low end total cost for
existing facilities is approximately $1,000 per facility per year. The high end cost is estimated at
approximately $27,000 per facility per year. However, EPA estimates that the actual cost will be
far closer to the low end estimate for the majority of facilities and has estimated an average cost
estimate of approximately $2,000 per year per existing facility. Furthermore, EPA estimates the
median cost will be below $2,000 per facility per year. The complete cost analysis is available in
the docket for the proposed permit. Several specific cost elements are described below. See "Cost
Analyses" file in the docket for more detail on cost analyses.
5.1 Analytical Benchmark Monitoring
Some sectors and subsectors that did not previously perform benchmark monitoring will
be required to do so. Generally, the monitoring requirements will be for TSS, a relatively
inexpensive laboratory test. Using a conservative estimation scheme, the Agency estimates an
increased cost of approximately $126 dollars per year in monitoring costs for these facilities.
Based on analytical cost data obtained after this analysis was completed, the agency believes this
estimate is high.
5.2 Reporting
EPA will release a new electronic reporting system in concurrence with the final permit
that will reduce time required per reporting event. In the 2000 Permit, EPA estimated that
facilities would need 2 hours per annual reporting event. However, in the 2006 Permit, EPA
estimates that facilities will need 1 hour for the first quarterly reporting event, and 15 minutes for
each event thereafter. If the 2000 reporting mechanism applied to the MSGP 2006, EPA
estimates an increased burden of approximately 900 hours in the first year and 1200 hours in the
second year. Hence, the new reporting mechanism should save 2,100 hours, or approximately 0.6
hours or $26 per facility over the course of the 5 year permit.
page 65
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
EPA no longer will require permittees to contact their local municipalities. EPA estimates
that this will save $19 in the first year for all facilities.
Some facilities will need to check with their TMDL authorities if they discharge to
impaired waters to see what steps they need to take. EPA calculated a high end estimate of $300
incurred the first year for these select facilities. These costs are reflected in the high end estimate.
page 66
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
6. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866)
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines "significant regulatory
action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that the proposed MSGP is not a "significant regulatory action"
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review
prior to proposal.
page 67
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Pub.L. 104-4, generally
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their "regulatory actions" on State, local, and
Tribal governments and the private sector. EPA has determined that today's MSGP reissuance
does not result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
The Agency also believes that the proposed MSGP will not significantly nor uniquely
affect small governments. For UMRA purposes, "small governments" is defined by reference to
the definition of "small governmental jurisdiction" under the RFA. (See UMRA Section 102(1),
referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which references Section 601(5) of the RFA.) "Small governmental
jurisdiction" means governments of cities, counties, towns, etc., with a population of less than
50,000, unless the agency establishes an alternative definition.
Today's proposed MSGP also will not uniquely affect small governments because
compliance with the final permit conditions affects small governments in the same manner as any
other entities seeking coverage under the final permit.
page 68
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
8. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities resulting from the
proposed MSGP under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements of MSGP 2000 have already been approved in previous
submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the provisions of the CWA. The
paperwork requirements in the proposed MSGP 2006 are similar to those of MSGP 2000. EPA is
currently evaluating whether the existing PRA approval adequately covers the paperwork
requirements in MSGP 2006. EPA requests comments on these requirements. EPA will seek
approval of the Office of Management and Budget for any paperwork requirements it determines
are not adequately covered in an existing Information Collection Request (ICR) approval.
page 69
-------
Proposed 2006 MSGP
9. Impact on Small Business
EPA considered the impact of this general permit on small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. A small entity is defined as: (1) a small
business based on SBA size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of the general permit requirements on small
entities, the Agency believes that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Agency has reached the conclusion that the majority of
associated costs with the MSGP were covered by the initial 1991 Phase I rule analysis, with
additional analysis being performed for the 1995 MSGP. The Agency has reviewed summary
statistics from the 2002 Economic Census from the United States Census Bureau (available at:
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/). These values were then inflated from 2002 to 2005
dollars by using a conversion factor of 1.075. The agency surveyed statistics for companies with
0-4 employees from approximately 12 industry groups representative of various subsectors.
Facilities with 0-4 employees were selected because they were assumed to be the smallest
businesses and those that would see the greatest percentage of their gross revenue committed to
the permit. Groups selected included Leather and Tanning, Paper Mills, Wood Kitchen Cabinets,
Household Furniture, Fluid Milk Manufacturing, Creamery Butter manufacturing, Cheese
manufacturing, Carpet & rug mills, Gold ore mining, and Iron Ore Mining. For all groups, the
additional incremental cost associated with the MSGP 2006 permit appears to be 0.00% (Iron
Ore and Gold Ore Mining) to 0.15% (Wood Kitchen Cabinets) of average gross revenue. In order
for the MSGP permit to be greater than 3% of gross revenue, implementation costs would need
to exceed from approximately $2,600 per facility per year (Wood Kitchen Cabinets) to $ 41,000
per facility per facility per year (cheese manufacturing). Based on EPA's estimates of full
implementation cost of the permit, the total cost should not exceed 3% per year of gross revenue,
and will be well under 1% of gross revenue for almost all facilities. Average gross revenue was
calculated by dividing the total value of shipments per sector by the total number of facilities
with 0-4 employees per sector. We also surveyed Water Transportation, but 2002 numbers were
not broken down by the number of employees. We instead looked at inland water transportation,
Excursion and Sightseeing, assuming industries in this sector would be smaller businesses. This
sector will also remain well below the 3% threshold, requiring approximately $192,000 per
facility per year to cross the 3% limit. Numerous other sectors for which data is available in the
economic census were scanned to be sure their results were consistent with this analysis.
page 70
------- |