Page 1 of 6

May 29 , 201 5

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, 201 4 . 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 F act S heet . This list does not include changes initiated by EPA during Inter

- Agency review to improve clarity or consistency, or to correct errors.

Pa rt 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 subse quent 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 d ays. If the completion of stormwater control repairs/replacement will exceed the 45 day timeframe, you may take thePage 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 ste ps 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 lat er 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 discharg ed 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 la te 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” f or 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. ”

 Par t 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,

com plete 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 notifyPage 3 of 6 the EPA Regional Office of your intention to exceed 45 days, your ration ale 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 correc tive 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 immedi ately. 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 asPage 4 of 6 feasible but must be no later than the timeframe e stablished 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 wi th 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, cle aning 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 re quirements, 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 m aterial 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 diversio n 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, locate d 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

circumstanc es 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 acti on 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 t he 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

necessi tate 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 control s 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 th e 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 d etermination 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 thePage 6 of 6

industrial facil ity 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 ot her 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 e conomically 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 determinat ion, unless EPA concludes that the SWPPP is inadequate per Part 5.1 .”