Page 1 of 6

May 29, 2015

MEMORANDUM

To: File

From: Bryan Rittenhouse, Physical Scientist, U.S. EPA

Re: Summary of Changes Made to EPA’s Multi-Sector General Permit at the Request of 

OMB or other Federal Agencies

This memorandum includes a summary of changes made to EPA’s Multi-Sector General 

Permit (MSGP) in response to comments received during Inter-Agency review. The final MSGP 

was submitted to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) on December 22, 2014. OMB 

closed its review on May 18, 2015.

The following includes a part-by-part summary of the changes made to the 2015 MSGP 

and Fact Sheet. This list does not include changes initiated by EPA during Inter-Agency review 

to improve clarity or consistency, or to correct errors.

Part 1

 Part 1.1.3.3 – Created a separate heading for allowable non-stormwater discharges for the 

the Part 8 mining sectors: “1.1.3.2 Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges for Sectors G, H 

and J Mining-related Earth-disturbing Activities Conducted Prior to Active Mining 

Activities for Sectors G, H, and J”

 Part 1.1.4 – Added the underlined language: “Any discharges not expressly authorized in 

this permit cannot become authorized or shielded from liability under CWA section 402(k) 

by disclosure to EPA, state, or local authorities after issuance of this permit via any means, 

including the Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered by the permit, the Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), or during an inspection.”

Part 2

 Part 2.1.2.3 – Added the underlined language: “If you find that your control measures are 

in need of routine maintenance, you must conduct the necessary maintenance 

immediately in order to minimize pollutant discharges. If you find that your control 

measures need to be repaired or replaced, you must immediately take all reasonable 

steps to prevent or minimize the discharge of pollutants until the final repair or 

replacement is implemented, including cleaning up any contaminated surfaces so that 

the material will not be discharged during subsequent storm events. Final 

repairs/replacement of stormwater controls should be completed as soon as feasible but 

must be no later than the timeframe established in Part 4.3 for corrective actions, i.e., 

within 14 days or, if that is infeasible, within 45 days. If the completion of stormwater 

control repairs/replacement will exceed the 45 day timeframe, you may take the 
Page 2 of 6

minimum additional time necessary to complete the maintenance, provided that you 

notify the EPA Regional Office of your intention to exceed 45 days, and document in 

your SWPPP your rationale for your modified maintenance timeframe.”

Note: In this context, the term “immediately” requires you to, on the same day you 

identify that a control measure needs to be maintained, take all reasonable steps to 

minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution is installed and 

made operational. However, if a problem is identified at a time in the work day when it is 

too late to take action, the initiation of action must begin no later than the following 

work day. “All reasonable steps” means that the permittee has undertaken initial actions 

to assess and address the condition causing the corrective action, including, for 

example, cleaning up any exposed materials that may be discharged in a storm event 

(e.g., through sweeping, vacuuming) or making arrangements (i.e., scheduling) for a 

new best management practice (BMP) to be installed at a later date. “All reasonable 

steps” for purposes of complying with Part 4.2 Conditions Requiring SWPPP Review to 

Determine if Modifications Are Necessary, when you conclude a corrective action is, in 

fact, not necessary, could include documenting why a corrective action is unnecessary. 

Part 4

 Part 4.2 – Added the following text: “Note: When run-on to your facility causes a 

benchmark exceedance, in addition to reviewing and revising, as appropriate, your 

SWPPP, you should notify the other operators contributing run-on to your discharges to 

abate their pollutant contribution. Where the other operators fail to take action to 

address the stormwater run-on, you should contact your EPA Regional Office.”

 Part 4.3.1 – Added the underlined text: “Note: In this context, the term “immediately” 

requires you to, on the same day a condition requiring corrective action is found, take all 

reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent 

solution is installed and made operational. However, if a problem is identified at a time in 

the work day when it is too late to initiate corrective action, the initiation of corrective 

action must begin no later than the following work day. “All reasonable steps” means 

that the permittee has undertaken initial actions to assess and address the condition 

causing the corrective action, including, for example, cleaning up any exposed 

materials that may be discharged in a storm event (e.g., through sweeping, vacuuming) 

or making arrangements (i.e., scheduling) for a new BMP to be installed at a later date.

“All reasonable steps” for purposes of complying with Part 4.2 Conditions Requiring 

SWPPP Review to Determine if Modifications Are Necessary, when you conclude a 

corrective action is, in fact, not necessary, could include documenting why a corrective 

action is unnecessary.”

 Part 4.3.2 – Added the underlined language: “If you determine that additional actions are 

necessary beyond those implemented pursuant to Part 4.3.1, you must complete the 

corrective actions (e.g., install a new or modified control and make it operational, 

complete the repair) before the next storm event if possible, and within 14 calendar days 

from the time of discovery of the corrective action condition. If it is infeasible to complete 

the corrective action within 14 calendar days, you must document why it is infeasible to 

complete the corrective action within the 14-day timeframe. You must also identify your 

schedule for completing the work, which must be done as soon as practicable after the 

14-day timeframe but no longer than 45 days after discovery. If the completion of 

corrective action will exceed the 45 day timeframe, you may take the minimum 

additional time necessary to complete the corrective action, provided that you notify 
Page 3 of 6

the EPA Regional Office of your intention to exceed 45 days, your rationale for an 

extension, and a completion date, which you must also include in your corrective action 

documentation (see Part 4.4). Where your corrective actions result in changes to any of 

the controls or procedures documented in your SWPPP, you must modify your SWPPP 

accordingly within 14 calendar days of completing corrective action work.”

 Part 4.4 – Made the following changes (new text underlined): “You must also document the 

corrective actions taken or to be taken as a result of the conditions listed in Part 4.1 or 4.2 (or, for 

triggering events in Part 4.2 where you determine that corrective action is not necessary, 

the basis for this determination) within 14 days from the time of discovery of any of those 

conditions. Provide the dates when each corrective action was initiated and completed 

(or is expected to be completed). If applicable, document why it is infeasible to 

complete the necessary installations or repairs within the 14-day timeframe and 

document your schedule for installing the controls and making them operational as soon 

as practicable after the 14-day timeframe (but no longer than 45 days after discovery). If 

you notified EPA regarding an extension of the 45 day timeframe, you must document 

your rationale for an extension.”

Part 5

 Part 5.5 – Added the underlined text: “Documentation of any benchmark exceedances 

and the type of response to the exceedance you employed, including:

the corrective action taken;

a finding that the exceedance was due to natural background pollutant 

levels;

a determination from EPA that benchmark monitoring can be discontinued 

because the exceedance was due to run-on; or

a finding that no further pollutant reductions were technologically available 

and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry 

practice consistent with Part 6.2.1.2.”

Fact Sheet

 Section VI – Added the following text: “The estimated costs of compliance have not 

changed between proposal and the issuance of the final 2015 MSGP. These numbers 

were developed by updating previous estimates to 2013 dollars by adjusting for the 

10.52% inflation between average private sector hourly rates (which increased from the 

2008 MSGP cost analysis from $45.84 per hour to $51.23 per hour).”

 Section VI.A.2

o In the section heading “Maintenance”, added the underlined text: “If permittees

find that their control measures are in need of maintenance, they must conduct 

necessary maintenance immediately. If control measures need to be repaired or 

replaced, permittees must immediately take all reasonable steps to minimize or 

prevent the discharge of pollutants until the final repair or replacement can be 

implemented, including cleaning up any contaminated surfaces so that the 

material will not be discharged during subsequent storm events. Final 

repairs/replacement of stormwater controls should be completed as soon as 
Page 4 of 6

feasible but must be no later than the timeframe established in Part 4.3.2 for 

corrective actions, i.e., within 14 days or, if that is infeasible, no longer than 45 

days (or longer per notification of the Region). If a control measure was never 

installed, was installed incorrectly, or not in accordance with Parts 2 and/or 8, or 

is not being properly operated or maintained, permittees must conduct 

corrective action as specified in Part 4. 

The 2015 MSGP now specifies that “immediately” means that all reasonable 

steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants must be taken on the 

same day the repair or replacement of a stormwater control is identified until a 

permanent solution is installed and made operational. However, if a problem is 

identified at a time in the work day when it is too late to take action, the 

initiation of action must begin no later than the following work day. “All 

reasonable steps” means that the permittee has undertaken initial actions to 

assess and address the condition causing the corrective action, including, for 

example, cleaning up any exposed materials that may be discharged in a storm 

event (e.g., through sweeping, vacuuming) or making arrangements (i.e., 

scheduling) for a new BMP to be installed at a later date. EPA also clarifies that 

“all reasonable steps” does not mean taking action when it is unsafe to do so 

(e.g., due to inclement weather). “All reasonable steps” for purposes of 

complying with Part 4.2 Conditions Requiring SWPPP Review to Determine if 

Modifications Are Necessary, when you conclude a corrective action is, in fact, 

not necessary, could include documenting why a corrective action is 

unnecessary.”

o In the section heading “Spill Prevention and Response Procedures”, added the 

underlined text: “This Part requires that the potential for stormwater exposure 

from leaks, spills and other releases, which are major sources of stormwater 

pollution, be minimized. As a reminder, the term “minimize” is defined, for the 

purposes of this permit, as ”to reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable 

using control measures that are technologically available and economically 

practicable and achievable in light of best industry practices.” In addition to 

preventing spills and leaks, this effluent limit has requirements for after a 

spill/release occurs, to limit environmental damage. EPA encourages operators 

to identify potential spill areas and keep an inventory of materials handled, used, 

and disposed. This information would be valuable for complying with the 

requirement to specify the material handling procedures, storage requirements, 

containment or diversion equipment, and spill cleanup procedures that will 

minimize the potential for spills/releases and, in the event of a spill/release, 

ensure a proper and timely response. To comply with this effluent limit, 

permittees must: 

 Plainly label containers (e.g., “Used Oil,” “Spent Solvents,” “Fertilizers and 

Pesticides”) that could be susceptible to spillage or leakage to encourage 

proper handling and facilitate rapid response if spills or leaks occur;*
Page 5 of 6

 Implement procedures for material storage and handling, including the 

use of secondary containment and barriers between material storage and 

traffic areas, or a similarly effective means designed to prevent the 

discharge of pollutants from these areas (e.g., curbing, spill diversion 

pond; double-walled tank; drip pan); 

 Develop training on the procedures for expeditiously stopping, 

containing, and cleaning up leaks, spills, and other releases. When 

needed, execute such procedures as soon as possible;

 Keep spill kits on-site, located near areas where spills may occur or where 

a rapid response can be made; and 

 Notify appropriate facility personnel when a leak, spill, or other release 

occurs.

 Section VIII.C – Added the underlined text: “EPA does recognize that there may be 

circumstances in which immediate action to initiate corrective action may not be 

possible within the same day a corrective action condition is found. “All reasonable 

steps” does not necessitate taking action when it is unsafe to do so (e.g., due to 

inclement weather). EPA also recognizes that there may be circumstances where it is 

not feasible to complete needed corrective actions within 14 days, and therefore 

provides that permittees may modify the schedule for completing the corrective action 

so that corrective action is taken as soon as practicable after the 14-day timeframe, and 

is completed no later than 45 days after discovery of the triggering condition. If the 

completion of corrective action will exceed the 45 day timeframe, the permit also allows 

permittees to take the minimum additional time necessary to complete the corrective 

action, provided that the permittee notifies the EPA Regional Office. Permittees must 

provide a rationale for an extension of the timeframe, and a corrective action 

completion date to the EPA Regional Office, and also include this in their corrective 

action documentation.”

 Section X.B.1 – Added the underlined text: “EPA does not anticipate that corrective 

actions undertaken in response to benchmark exceedances under the MSGP will 

necessitate complex or costly actions for most permittees; rather, modifications to the 

stormwater controls in response to benchmark exceedances will in most cases be 

commonsense and pollution prevention-oriented. In some cases, when pollution 

prevention measures do not prove to be adequate, built or installed treatment controls

may also be needed to provide sufficient means for minimizing pollutants in stormwater 

discharges. EPA expects the great majority of permittees performing corrective actions 

(for any of the situations described in Part 4) will determine there are modifications that 

can be made to the control measures that are technologically available, and 

economically practicable and achievable, and commonly employed in the industry. Per 

Part 5.1, such a determination must be made by a “qualified person” (i.e., a person 

knowledgeable in the principles and practices of industrial stormwater controls and 

pollution prevention, and possesses the education and ability to assess conditions at the 
Page 6 of 6

industrial facility that could impact stormwater quality, and the education and ability to 

assess the effectiveness of stormwater controls selected and installed to meet the 

requirements of the permit). The permittee is not required to retain a professional 

engineer or other consultant in order to make this determination, unless EPA concludes 

that the SWPPP is inadequate per Part 5.1.”

...

“As explained earlier in this section of the Fact Sheet, in most cases, commonsense, 

pollution prevention-oriented stormwater control modifications will be possible by most 

facilities with benchmark exceedances. A determination that no further pollutant 

reductions are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable 

will be highly site-specific, and must be based on well-documented good engineering 

judgment. Again, the permittee is not required to retain a professional engineer or 

other consultant in order to make this determination, unless EPA concludes that the 

SWPPP is inadequate per Part 5.1.”