Page 1 of 18 

### Cost Impact Analysis for the Multi

- Sector General Permit (MSGP)

I. BACKGROUND

Since 1995, EPA has issued a series of MSGPs that cover areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. At present, EPA is the permitting authority in four states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico), the District of Columbia, Puerto Ri co, all other U.S. territories with the exception of the Virgin Islands, federal facilities in four states (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and Washington), most Indian lands and for other specifically designated activities in specific states (e.g., oil and g as activities in Texas and Oklahoma ). See Appendix C of the permit for a complete list of areas covered by EPA’s MSGP. EPA’s previous MSGP, the 2008 MSGP, became effective on September 29, 2008 (see 74 FR 40338), and expires on September 29, 2013. The 2013 MSGP will replace the 2008

MSGP.

In order to gain an understanding of the incremental differences between the 2008 MSGP and the proposed 2013 MSGP, it is first necessary to provide summaries of the requirements in the 2008 permit and of the new requireme nts in the proposed MSGP.

A. The 2008 MSGP

The 2008 MSGP replaced the expired MSGP 2000. The 2008 MSGP provisions require industrial facilities in 29 different industrial sectors to implement control measures and develop site

- specific stormwater pollutio n prevention plans (SWPPP) to comply with NPDES requirements. The MSGP includes a thirtieth industrial sector, available for EPA to permit discharges from additional industries not included in the 29

sectors. The 2008 MSGP was reorganized from the MSGP 200 0 to more clearly distinguish effluent
limitations from SWPPP documentation requirements. The 2008 MSGP more clearly distinguished between technology

- based and water quality

- based effluent limits.

B. Facilities Subject to the MSGP

The MSGP is a general permit designed to regulate stormwater discharges from 29 sectors of industr ial activity. As of May 2012, 2

, 268 facilities had coverage or were about to be covered following their waiting period under the 2008 MSGP. The 2008 MSGP covers facilities in non

- a uthorized states including

M assachusetts , I daho , N ew H ampshire , N ew M exico , Indian country, U.S. territories (including Puerto
Rico and excluding the V irgin I slands ), DC, and Federal facilities in C olorado , D elaware , V ermont , and

W ashington

.

II. Costs

A. Total Cost to Comply with the Draft 2013 MGSP

EPA believes that the proposed changes in the draft 2013 MSGP are not significant , and therefore will only result in negligible changes to cost as compared to the 2008 MSGP. Where possible, EPA did analyze the cost impacts of new proposed requirements on a per facility or per outfall basis (e.g., the average annual cost of installing a nd maintaining storm drain inlet protection for a single outfall was estimated in association with the proposed new requirement to treat pavement wash waters). However, for all of the proposed changes to the permit, it was not possible to determine how man y facilities willPage 2 of 18

be conducting the activity associated with the new requirement (e.g., EPA does not know the number of
facilities that are using catch basins and will have to comply with the new proposed requirement to
clean catch basins when the debris d epth reaches 2/3). EPA also notes that it has streamlined requirements in the draft 2013 MSGP for SWPPP documentation (i.e., facilities do not have to expound upon their compliance with certain effluent limits) and reduced requirements for inspections (i. e., facilities no longer have to conduct a separate comprehensive site inspection), which may actually reduce the annual compliance burden for facilities. EPA is not able to accurately assess the total cost impacts (both negative and positive) of the propo sed changes on the entire permitted universe but believes that the net change will not be significant compared to the cost of implementing the 2008 permit.

Based on estimates provided in prior permits, EPA estimates that the average annual cost of comply ing
with the 2013 MSGP is:

- For New Facilities: $2,75 2

- For Existing Facilities: $2,199 These numbers were developed by updating pre vious estimates to 2013 dollars, and account for several different aspects of permit compliance, including NOI submission, SWPPP preparation and implementation, inspections, recordkeeping, sampling, and reporting.

B. Cost Impact Analysis of Proposed Changes to MSGP

The sections below identify parts of the draft MSGP that have changed, along with a discussion of the cost impact from the change. A comparison of the 2008 MSGP and proposed 2013 MSGP language is included with each part.

When calculating facility labor costs, EPA assumed the average hourly rate in the private sector is $51.23 as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Total Compensation for Management, professional, and related. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 5

- Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Private industry, by major occupational group and bargaining status, June 2012.

The following sections are addressed in this cost impact analysis:

Part 1.1.3

– Allowable Non

- Stormwater Discharges

................................ ................................ .................... 3

Part 1.1 .4.8

– Eligibility for New Dischargers to Water Quality Impaired Waters

................................ ........ 4

Part 1.1.4.10

– Discharges to a CERCLA Site

................................ ................................ ................................ . 6

Part 2.1.2.2

– Good Housekeeping

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7

Part 2.1.2.3

– Maintenance

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 8

Part 2.1.2.8

– Employee Training

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 9

Part 5.1

– Persons responsible for SWPPP Preparation

................................ ................................ .............. 10

Part 5.2.5.1

– Pertaining to Control Measures Used to Comply with the Effluent Limits in Part 2

............ 11

Part 5.4

– SWPPP Availability

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 12

Part 5.5

– Additional Documentation Requirements

................................ ................................ ................. 14

Part 7.1

– Electronic Reporting Requirement

................................ ................................ ............................. 16

Part 7.5

– Annual Report

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 17

Part 8

– Metals Benchmark Values for Saline Waters

................................ ................................ ................ 18Page 3 of 18

Part 1.1.3

– Allowable Non

- S tormwater D ischarges

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP

Part 1.1.3. Allowable Non

- Stormwater Discharges The following are the non

- stormwater discharges authorized under this permit, provided the non

stormwater component of your discharge is in compliance with Part 2.1.2.10:

... Pavement wash waters where no deter gents are used and no spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have occurred (unless all spilled material has been removed); Routine external building washdown that does not use detergents;

... Part 1.1.3. Allowable Non

- Stormwater Discharges
The following are the non

- stormwater discharges authorized under this permit:

... Pavement wash waters where no detergents or hazardous cleaning products are used (e.g., bleach, hydrofluoric acid, muriatic acid, sodium hydroxide , nonylphenols ), and the wash waters do not come into contact with oil and grease deposits or any other toxic or hazardous materials (unless cleaned up using dry clean

- up methods) . This does not include oil and grease deposits that have been cleaned using dry clean

- up methods. You are prohibited from directing any authorized pavement wash waters directly into any surface water or storm drain inlet unless you have implemented appropriate control measures that
meet the non

- numeric effluent limits in Part 2.1.2. Where appropriate control measures are not in place, wash water runoff must first undergo treatment prior to discharge such as filtration, detention, or settlement; Routine external building washdown / power
washwater that does not use detergents or hazardous cleaning products, (su ch as those containing bleach, hydrofluoric acid, muriatic acid, sodium hydroxide, nonylphenols);

...

Permit Change Discussion This provision lists the non

- stormwater discharges authorized under the permit. The changes to the
allowable non

- stormwater discharges in Part 1.1.3 were made to ensure consistency with the corresponding effluent limit requirements in Part 2 of the permit and to ensure that pollutant discharges
from allowable non

- stormwater discharges are minimized. This Part also clarifies tha t the MSGP
authorizes allowable stormwater and non

- stormwater discharges that are commingled with a discharge authorized by a different NPDES permit and/or a discharge that does not require NPDES permit authorization. These changes are consistent with EPA’ s recently issued Construction General Permit.

The 2008 MSGP allowed non

- stormwater discharges for pavement wash waters where no detergents are used. The draft 2013 MSGP added the requirement to provide treatment of pavement wash waters before discharge to storm drain or surface water where appropriate control measures are not in place

. The draft MSGP also added “hazardous cleaning products” to the prohibition of discharges from pavement wash waters and external building wash down.Page 4 of 18

Cost Impact Discussion

EP A does not have data to estimate the number of facilities that currently conduct pavement washing that discharges to a surface water or storm drain without treatment. However, EPA believes that the number of facilities that conduct pavement washing without the wash water first undergoing treatment is a relatively small percentage of all facilities.

EPA did estimate the cost of providing inlet protection to capture soil, sediment, particulates, and other materials mobilized in pavement wash water. Costs are presented on a per inlet basis because EPA does not have information on the number of facilities that will need to treat pavement wash water nor the number of storm drain inlets that would need protection.

EPA assumes that industrial facility owners will p urchase and install storm drain inlet protection units to provide treatment for pavement wash water. Inlet protection, in its most basic form, involves placing a geotextile cone or basket into the inlet to prevent soil, sediment, and other particulate matt er from entering storm drains. Inlet protection devices can also contain material that will adsorb oil and grease mobilized in the wash water. Inlet protection devices must be inspected and cleaned following all storm and pavement washing events to remove accumulated material and/or replace the insert if damaged or
spent.

The cost of implementing storm drain inlet protection measures varies depending on the control measure used; costs are estimated for geotextile inserts retrofitted into existing storm drai n inlets. Initial purchase and installation costs range from $50 to $150 per inlet depending on the materials and filtration media used, with an average cost of $100 (USEPA 2012). An online retailer has drain guards for capturing oil and sediment starting at $89.60 per inlet (Grainger 2012), not including installation.

Maintenance costs can be high (up to 100 percent of the initial construction cost annually) because of the frequent inspection, cleaning, and repair needs (USEPA 2012). CASQA (2009) estimates the average annual cost of installation and maintenance of storm drain inlet protection to be $200 ($2009), with the assumption that the insert will be replaced every year.

EPA, for this analysis, estimates an average annual cost of $215 ($2012), based on the CASQA (20 09) annual cost updated to current dollars with the consumer price index (CPI, BLS 2012), to install and maintain protection in one storm drain inlet. The total annual cost to the regulated community is a
function of the num ber of facilities directing pavement wash water to storm drains and surface water s without treatment.

Part 1.1.4. 8

– Eligibility for New Discharge r s to Water Quality Impaired Waters

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP 1.1.4.7 New Discharges to Water Quality Impaire d

Waters. If you are a new discharger you are not eligible for coverage under this permit to discharge to an “impaired water”, as defined in Appendix A unless you:

a. prevent all exposure to stormwater of the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired, and retain documentation of procedures taken to prevent exposure onsite with your SWPPP; or b. document that the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired is not present at your site, 1.1.4. 8 Eligibility for New Dischargers to Water Quality Impaired Waters. If you are a new discharger (as defined in Appendix A), you are not eligible for coverage under this permit to discharge to an “impaired water” (as defined in Appendix A) unless you do one of the following:

a. P revent all exposure to stormwater of the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired, and retain documentation of procedures taken to prevent exposure onsite with your SWPPP.
b. Prior to submitting your NOI, provide to the appropriate EPA Regional Office technicalPage 5 of 18

and retain documentation of this finding with your

SWPP P; or c. in advance of submitting your NOI, provide to the appropriate EPA Regional Office data to support a showing that the discharge is not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a water quality standard, and retain such data onsite with yo ur SWPPP. To do this, you must provide data and other technical information to the Regional Office
sufficient to demonstrate:

i. For discharges to waters without an EPA approved or established TMDL, that the discharge of the pollutant for which the water is impaired will meet instream water quality criteria at the point of discharge to the waterbody; or ii. For discharges to waters with an EPA approved or established TMDL, that there are sufficient remaining wasteload allocations in an EPA approved or esta blished TMDL to allow your discharge and that existing dischargers to the waterbody are subject to compliance schedules designed to bring the waterbody into attainment with water quality standards.

You are eligible under Part 1.1.4.7.c if you receive an

a ffirmative determination from the Regional Office that your discharge will not contribute to the existing impairment, in which case you must maintain such determination onsite with your SWPPP, or if the Regional Office fails to respond within 30 days of submission of data to the Regional Office. information or other documentation to support your claim that the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired is not present at your site,
and retain such docume ntation with your SWPPP. c. Prior to submitting your NOI, provide to the appropriate EPA Regional Office information,
either data or other technical documentation

, to support a conclusion that the discharge is not expected to cause or contribute to an exce edance of a water quality standard, and retain such information with your SWPPP. The information to
be submitted must be sufficient to demonstrate:

i. For discharges to waters without an EPA approved or established TMDL, that the discharge of the poll utant for which the water is impaired will meet in

- stream water quality criteria at the point of discharge to the waterbody; or

ii. For discharges to waters with an applicable EPA approved or established TMDL, which specifically provides for a wasteload a llocation
to stormwater or determined that stormwater was not a source of the impairment, that there are sufficient remaining wasteload allocations in the TMDL to allow your discharge and that existing dischargers to the waterbody are subject to compliance schedules designed to bring the waterbody into attainment with water quality standards. You are eligible under Part 1.1.4.8.c if you receive an affirmative determination from the Regional Office that your discharge will not contribute to the existing impairment, in which case you must maintain such determination onsite with your SWPPP, or if the Regional Office fails to respond within 30 days of submission of data to the Regional Office.

Permit Change Discussion

Part 1.1.4. 8 requires any new discharger to demonstrate their ability to comply with 40 CFR 122.4(i) (prohibiting the issuance of permits to new dischargers that will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards) prior to coverage under the permit by eliminat ing all exposure to stormwater of the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired, or generating infor mation that the facility does not have the pollutants or that the facility will not contribute to any impairments (either with or without a TMDL). The major change in the proposal is the requirement to submit the information / data generated under 1.1.4

. 8 .b (information supporting a claim that the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired is not present at your site) to EPA before submitting an NOI.

Cost Impact Discussion
EPA assumes no additional cost for Part 1.1.4. 8 . The 2008 MSGP required new ly discharging operators, of which there are only typically about 50 a year under the MSGP, to document pollutants for which thePage 6 of 18

waterbody is impaired. T he additional requirement in the proposed 2013 MSGP is to provide that
documentation to EPA before subm itting the NOI, which EPA assumes will be accomplished primarily via
email.

Part 1.1.4.1 0

– Discharges to a CERCLA Site

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP

Not included. 1.1.4.10 Discharges to a CERCLA Site. If you discharge to a federal CERCLA Site as defined in Appendix A and referenced in Appendix P, you are ineligible for coverage under this permit, unless you notify your applicable EPA Regional Office in advance and the EPA Office determines that you are eligible for permit coverage pursuant to Part 1.1.4. 10. In determining eligibility for coverage under this Part, the EPA Regional Office may evaluate whether you have included appropriate controls and implementation procedures designed to ensure your discharge will not lead to recontamination of aquatic me dia at the CERCLA Site. If it is determined that your facility discharges to a CERCLA Site referenced in Appendix P after you have obtained coverage under this permit, you must contact your applicable EPA Regional Office and develop appropriate controls a nd/or implementation procedures to ensure that your discharges will not lead to recontamination of aquatic media at the CERCLA Site.

For the purposes of this permit, a permittee discharges to a Federal CERCLA Site if the discharge flows directly
into the site through its own conveyance, or a through a conveyance owned by others, such as a municipal
separate storm sewer system.

Permit Change Discussion

T he proposed 2013 MSGP does not authorize stormwater discharges to a CERCLA site identified in Appendix A that is occurring or has occurred in a water of the U

. S

. , unless first approved by the appropriate EPA Regional office. The EPA Regional office may authorize a facility’s stormwater discharges after appropriate controls and impleme ntation procedures are developed to ensure that discharges will not lead to recontamination of aquatic media at the CERCLA site (particularly benthic zone sediment)

.

Cost Impact Discussion Where EPA does MSGP permitting, there are approximately 52 facilit ies discharging within one mile of a CERCLA sediment sites as defined in the proposed permit. However, very few CERCLA sites are contemplated to be included on the list of sites to be identified in Appendix P by the EPA Regional offices, and far fewer than 52 facilities will be potentially affected by this requirement. Expected costs to operators discharging stormwater to CERCLA sites are not quantifiable with currently available information. The controls and their associated implementation costs to ensure aquatic media at CERCLA
clean

- up sites are not contaminated or recontaminated from industrial stormwater discharges will be highly site

- specific and dependent on pollutants of concern. EPA has no knowledge of the on

- sitePage 7 of 18

conditions or existence of polluta nts of concern (if any) that could impact the cost of compliance with this provision at the few industrial facilities possibly affected by this requirement.

Part 2.1.2.2

– Good Housekeeping

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP 2.1.2.2 Good Housekeeping.

You must keep clean all exposed areas that are potential sources of pollutants, using such measures as sweeping at regular intervals, keeping materials orderly and labeled, and storing materials in appropriate

containers. 2.1.2.2 Good Housekeeping. You must keep clean all exposed areas that are potential sources of pollutants. At a minimum, you

must:

Sweep or vacuum at regular intervals; Store materials in appropriate containers; Identify and control all on

- site sources of dust to minimize stormwater; contaminati on from the deposition of dust on areas exposed to precipitation Keep all dumpsters under cover or fit with a lid that must remain closed when not in use;* and Ensure that waste, garbage, and floatable debris are not discharged to receiving waters by keepi ng exposed areas free of such materials or by intercepting them before they are discharged.

Plastic m aterials r equirements: Facilities that handle

pre

- production plastic pellets are required to implement best management practices to eliminate discharges of plastic in storm water. Examples of plastic material required to be addressed as stormwater pollutants include plastic resin pellets, powders, flakes, additives, regrind, scrap, waste and recycling.

Permit Change Discussion The good houseke eping effluent limit has been clarified to provide the required actions that EPA believes will best lead to the attainment water quality standards. Permit requirements / effluent limits in past MSGPs were usually written in very general terms to provide t he flexibility envisioned in general permits. Operators are supposed to select controls in accordance with good engineering practices and to industry standards , which EPA provides in its industrial stormwater and MSGP Fact Sheets. But this relies on oper ators finding this information online or acquiring previously printed copies and then incorporating the recommended controls in their SWPPPs. As a result there are often widely varying levels of stormwater program effectiveness amongst facilities. By inc orporating some of the more general recommended controls in the effluent limits versus the Fact Sheets, EPA has clarified its expectations and made it easier for operators to attain compliance.

EPA has also included new language regarding plastic pellets (“nurdles”) to this effluent limit to identify and increase awareness of the potential for this type of pollution to occur. The SWPPP must also contain the necessary documentation of the controls, per Part 5.2 of the permit.

Cost Impact DiscussionPage 8 of 18

EPA as sumes no additional cost for Part 2.1.2.2. This lack of additional cost is due to the fact that the proposed good housekeeping effluent limit merely elaborate s on practices that are standard and should have already been implemented by industrial facilities

. And since EPA provides information about what controls are available and in regular use for compliance with permit requirements / effluent limitations in fact sheets, EPA has set minimum expectations for operators regarding compliance. For example, the Sector A (timber products) industrial fact sheet EPA published in 2006 describes sweeping, dust control, and the use of covered dumpsters. Other sector fact sheets have similar good housekeeping requirements.

For plastic materials requirements, EPA’s S ec tor Y industrial fact sheet (rubber, misc. plastic products) published in 2006 provides a number of practices to manage plastic pellets. EPA is simply elaborating on good housekeeping practices for the plastics industry that are already being implemented.

Part 2.1.2.3

– Maintenance

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP

2.1.2.3 Maintenance. You must regularly inspect, test, maintain, and repair all industrial equipment and systems to avoid situations that may result in leaks, spills, and other releases of pollutants in stormwater discharged to receiving
waters. You must maintain all control measures that are used to achieve the effluent limits required by this permit in effective operating condition. Nonstructural control measures must also be diligently maintained ( e.g., spill response supplies available, personnel appropriately trained). If you find that your control measures need to be replaced or repaired, you must make the necessary repairs or modifications as expeditiously as practicable. 2.1.2.3 Maintenance.

Y ou must maintain all control measures that are used to achieve the effluent limits required by this permit in effective operating condition, as well as all industrial equipment and systems to help prevent discharges of pollutants from them. This includes: Performing inspections and preventive maintenance of stormwater drainage, source controls, treatment systems, and plant equipment and systems that could fail and
result in contamination of stormwater. Diligently maintain nonstructural control measures (e. g., keep spill response supplies available, personnel appropriately trained). Inspect and maintain bag houses quarterly to prevent the escape of dust from the system and immediately remove any accumulated dust at the base of the exterior bag house.*

Clea n catch basins when the depth of debris
reaches two

- thirds (2/3) of the sump depth and keep the debris surface at least 6 inches below the outlet pipe.*

If you find that your control measures need to be replaced or repaired, you must immediately take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution is installed and made operational, including cleaning up an y contaminated surfaces so that the material will not discharge in subsequent storm events.

Permit Change Discussion Part 2.1.2.3 has been clarified to provide specific actions required to maintain a facility’s stormwater control measures and timeframes for remediating situations where pollutants could be released. ThePage 9 of 18

new language includes industry

- standard catch basin cleaning requirements to prevent this maintenance action from being overlooked.

Cost Impact Discussion
EPA does not have sufficient data to estimate the number of industrial facilities that have catch basins or the total cost for cleaning these catch bas ins. EPA assumes that the majority of facilities do not have catch basins or these facilities discharge to municipal catch basins offsite. H owever, EPA can estimate the cleaning cost rate for a typical catch basin at a single facility. To develop this cos t estimate, EPA used municipal catch basin cleaning costs 1 ranging from $120 to $190 per hour for as needed cleaning and related these costs to industrial facilities since maintenance of catch basin cleaning is similar in nature. Therefore, EPA estimates a median cost of $155 per hour per catch basin cleanout on an as needed basis. Additionally, EPA notes that catch basin cleaning costs vary depending on local market conditions.

EPA does not believe that this requirement will cause a substantial increase in the overall cost for a facility to comply with this permit.

Part 2.1.2.8

– Employee Training

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP 2.1.2.9 Employee Training. You must train all employees who work in areas where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, or who are responsible for implementing activities necessary to meet the conditions of this permit (e.g., inspectors, maintenance personnel),
including all members of your Pollution Prevention Team. Training must cover both the specific control
measures used to achieve the effluent limits in this Part,
and monitoring, inspection, planning, reporting, and documentation requirements in other parts of this
permit. EPA recommends training be conducted at least annually (or more often if employee tur nover is high). 2.1.2.8 Employee Training. You must train all employees who work in areas where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, or who are responsible for implementing activities necessary to meet the conditions of this permit (e.g., inspectors, maintenance personnel), including all members of your Pollution Prevention

Team. Ensure the following personnel understand the requirements of this permit and their specific responsibilities with respect to those requirements: Personnel who are responsible for the design,

ins tallation, maintenance, and/or repair of stormwater controls (including pollution prevention measures); Personnel responsible for the storage and handling of chemicals and materials that could become contaminants in stormwater discharges;

Personnel who are responsible for conducting and documenting monitoring and inspections as required in Parts 3 and 6; and Personnel who are responsible for taking and documenting corrective actions as required in Part

4.

At a minimum, personnel must be trained to understand the following if related to the scope of their job duties (e.g., only personnel responsible for conducting inspections need to understand how to conduct inspections):
The location of all stormwater controls on the site required by this permit, a nd how they are to be

1 Capital Region Council of Governments (Hartford, CT). (2010 ). Bid Tabulation Packet for Catch Basin Cleaning . Obtained from http://www.crcog.org/publications/PurchasingDocs/571CatchBasinCleaning/571CatchBasinCleaningTab.pdfPage 10 of 18 maintained; The proper procedures to follow with respect to the permit’s pollution prevention requirements;
and When and how to conduct inspections, record applicable findings, and take corrective actions.

Permit Change Discussion

A dditional specificity was added to the employee training requirements in the MSGP in order to provide clarity , but no additional elements from the previous permit, to operators about the requirements of
the training effluent limit. Both the 2008 and 2013 p ermits require education to be provided to employees on how to implement their SWPPP

. The new requirements for employee training are consistent with the employee training requirements in EPA’s 2012 Construction General Permit.

Cost Impact Discussion

EPA a ssume s no additional cost for Part 2.1.2.8 . The new language does not add new requirements but simply clarifies the personnel and topics that were expe cted in the MSGP 2008 training.

Part 5.1

– Persons responsible for SWPPP Preparation

2008 MSGP Draft 201 3 MSGP

Not in 2008 MSGP 5.1 Person(s) Responsible for SWPPP Preparation The SWPPP shall be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and to industry standards. The SWPPP may be developed by either a person on your staff or a third party you hire, and it shall be certified in accordance with the signature requirements in Part
5.2.7. If EPA concludes that the SWPPP is not in substantial compliance with Part 5.2 of this permit, EPA may also require the SWPPP to be reviewed, amended

as necessary, and certified by a Professional Engineer, or for Sector G, H or J, by a Professional Geologist, with
the education and experience necessary for developing and implementing a SWPPP.

Permit Change Discussion Part 5.1 requires that The SWPPP shall be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and to industry standards. The SWPPP may be developed by either a person on the facility’s staff or a third party, and must be certified in accordance with the signature requirements in Part 5.2.7 . When EPA determines, upon reviewing a SWPPP, that the SWPPP is severely deficient or generic / lacking site specificity, an operator is put on notice that EPA may require a SWPPP to be developed by a person with professional credentials.

In t he 2008 MSGP Part 2.1, EPA included a statement regarding selection of stormwater controls: “The selection, design, installation, and implementation of these control measures must be in accordance with good engineering practices and m anufacturer’s specifi cations.” For the new permit, EPA has made a similar requirement applicable to the development of the entire SWPPP, not just the controls. SWPPPs examined during inspections are often found to be generic / minimal and not site specific, indicating a possi ble lack of or only rudimentary understanding of the permit requirements. As a result, EPA has included a requirement that someone at the facility must certify they have the knowledge andPage 11 of 18

ability to appropriately implement the SWPPP which was developed to the standards set forth in the first sentence. Such a certification provides accountability and should increase the chances that SWPPPs are not written (often by contractors) and then just shelved and ignored by facility personnel. The professional creden tials option that the Agency may mandate for severely and/or persistently deficient SWPPPs is a last resort situation before it is necessary to take other enforcement actions to achieve the permit’s goals. This requirement engenders no additional burden wh en the permit is fully complied with originally.

Cost Impact Discussion

EPA a ssume s no additional cost for Part 5.1 . Facilities are already expected to comply with the permit and to take actions necessary to achieve compliance, including obtaining the ass istance of a P

. E

. if the facility does not have someone on staff with the education, experience and accountability necessary to develop a SWPPP in compliance with the permit.

Part 5.2.5.1

– Pertaining to Control Measures Used to Comply with the Effluent Limits in Part 2

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP 5.1.5.1 Pertaining to Control Measures Used to Comply
with the Effluent Limits in Part 2. The following must be documented in your SWPPP:

• Good Housekeeping (See Part 2.1.2.2)

– A schedule for regular pickup and disposal of waste materials, along with routine inspections for leaks
and conditions of drums, tanks and containers;

• Maintenance (See Part 2.1.2.3)

– Preventative maintenance procedures, including regular inspections, testing, maintenance, and repair of al l industrial equipment and systems, and control measures, to avoid situations that may result in leaks, spills, and other releases, and any back

- up practices in place should a runoff event occur
while a control measure is off

- line;

• Spill Prevention and Res ponse Procedures (See Part 2.1.2.4)

– Procedures for preventing and responding to spills and leaks. You may reference the existence of other plans for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) developed for the facility under Section 311 of the CW A or BMP programs otherwise required by an NPDES permit for the facility, provided that you keep a copy of that other plan onsite and make it available for review consistent with Part 5.3; and

• Employee Training (Part 2.1.2.9)

– A schedule for all types of necessary training. 5.2.5.1 Pertaining to Control Measures Used to Comply with the Effluent Limits in Part 2. The following must be documented in your SWPPP: Good Housekeeping (See Part 2.1.2.2)

– A schedule for regular pickup and disposal of waste

mater ials, along with routine inspections for leaks and conditions of drums, tanks and containers ;
Maintenance (See Part 2.1.2.3)

– P reventative maintenance procedures, including regular inspections, testing, maintenance and repair of all control measures to avoid situations that may result in leaks, spills, and other releases, and any
back

- up practices in place should a runoff event

oc cur while a control measure is off

- line. The
SWPPP shall include the frequency for maintaining all control measures used to comply with the
effluent limits in Part 2 ; Spill Prevention and Response Procedures (See Part 2.1.2.4)

– Procedures for preventing a nd responding to spills and leaks, including notification procedures. For preventing spills, include in your SWPPP the control measures for material handling and storage, and the procedures for preventing spills that can contaminate stormwater. Also speci fy cleanup equipment, procedures and spill logs, as appropriate, in the event of spills. You may reference the existence of other plans for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) developed for the facility under Section 311 of the CWA or BMP pr ograms otherwise required by an NPDES permit for the facility, provided that you keep a copy of that other plan onsite and make it available for review consistent with Part 5.3; Erosion and Sediment Control (Part 2.1.2.8)

– IfPage 12 of 18 you use polymers and/or other chemical treatments as part of your controls, you must identify the polymers and/or chemicals used and the purpose ; and Employee Training (Part 2.1.2.8)

– The elements of your employee training plan shall include all, but not be limited to, the requi rements set forth in Part 2.1.2.8, and also the following:

o The content of the training;

o The frequency/schedule of training for employees who have duties in areas of industrial activities subject to this permit;

o A log of the dates on which specific employe es received training.

Permit Change Discussion The permit identifies specific information that must be documented in the SWPPP. EPA emphasizes that
all control measures implemented to meet the Part 2 limits must be documented in the SWPPP. In addition to the description of the on

- the

- ground control measures implemented to meet the effluent limits, EPA has clarified the specific documentation that must be included in the SWPPP.

Spill Prevention and Response Procedures (see also Part 2.1.2.4) . The SWPPP requirement to document compliance with the spill prevention and response effluent limit has been clarified to reflect the information that the revised effluent limit now requires. The SWPPP also needs to include notification procedures and for preventing spills, include in your SWPPP the control measures for material handling and storage, and the procedures for preventing spills that can contaminate stormwater. Also specify cleanup equipment, procedures and spill logs, as appropriate, in the ev ent of spills.

Employee Training (see also Part 2.1.2.9). New d ocumentation requirements are to include in the SWPPP the actual training materials that were developed to meet Part 2.1.2.9. The log of training in the proposed permit is not new; it is just a consolidation into P art 5.2.5.1 of the 2008 MSGP’s separate employee training records documentation found in Part 5.4 of that permit.

Cost Impact Discussion EPA assumes no additional cost to document spill prevention and response procedures. The propose d new requirements clarif

y the existing requirements in the 2008 permit. A cost impact assumption for maintaining a spill log is discussed in Part 5.5.

EPA a ssume s no additional cost for the employee training documentation requirements as only change

is to not generate new documentation, just to include the material already generated to meet the effluent limit in the facility’s SWPPP.

Part 5.4

– SWPPP Availability

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP 5.3 SWPPP Availability. You must retain a copy of the current SWPPP required by this permit at the facility, and it must be immediately available to EPA; a State, Tribal, or local agency approving stormwater management plans; the operator 5.4 SWPPP Availability.

You must retain a complete copy of your current SWPPP required by this permit at the facility in any accessible format. A complete SWPPP includes any documents incorporated by reference and allPage 13 of 18

of an MS4 receiving discharges from the site; and representatives of the U.S. F ish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the time of an onsite inspection or upon request. EPA may provide access to portions of your SWPPP to a member of the public upon request.
Confidential Business Information (CBI) may be withheld from the public, but may not be withheld from
those staff cleared for CBI review within EPA, USFWS, or

NMFS.

EPA encourages you to post your SWPPP online and provide the website address on your NOI. documentation supporting your permit eligibility pursuant to Part 5.2.6 of this permit, as well as your signed and dated certification page. Regardless of the format, the SWPPP must be immediately available to facility employees, EPA, a state or tribe, the operator of an MS4 receiving discharges from the site; and
representa tives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the time of an onsite inspection. Your current

SWPPP or certain information from your current SWPPP
described below must also be made available to the public (except any confidential business information (CBI) or restricted information (as defined in Appendix A)), but you must clearly identify those portions of the SWPPP that are being withheld from public access ; to do so, you must comply with one of th e following two options:

5.4.1 SWPPP Posting on the Internet. If you provide a URL in your NOI where your SWPPP can be found, and maintain your current SWPPP at this URL, you will have complied with the public availability requirements for the SWPPP. To r emain current, you must post any SWPPP modifications, records and other reporting elements required for the previous year at the same URL as the main body of the SWPPP. The SWPPP update shall be no later than 45 days after conducting the fourth (i.e., fin al) routine facility inspection for the year required in Part 3.1. If you did not provide a SWPPP URL in your NOI, you may reopen your NOI at any time subsequent to your original NOI submittal to add a URL where your current SWPPP can
be found. You are no t required to post any CBI or restricted information (as defined in Appendix A) at this URL (such information may be redacted), but you must clearly identify those portions of the SWPPP that are being withheld from public access. CBI may not be
withheld fr om those staff cleared for CBI review within EPA, USFWS or NMFS.

5.4.2 SWPPP Information Provided on NOI form If you did not provide a SWPPP URL in your NOI, your NOI must include the information required by Part 7.3. Irrespective of this requirement, E PA may provide

access to portions of your SWPPP to a member of the public upon request (except any CBI or restricted information (as defined in Appendix A))

.

Permit Change Discussion Part 5.4 provides options for the facility to choose for public availability of the SWPPP. The permittee can either provide an URL for their SWPPP location on the NOI form or provide information in the NOIPage 14 of 18

pursuant to Part 7.3. Confidential Business Infor mation (CBI) or restricted information may be withheld from the public, but may not be withheld from EPA or the Services.

Previous MSGPs required an operator to provide a SWPPP to a member of the public only after a requester asked EPA for it. This made it difficult for the public to get information about local industrial stormwater discharges that would help them protect their local resources; plus it reduced opportunities to ensure permit compliance by regulatory agencies. To improve the accessibility of SWPPPs

, EPA added a requirement for operators to either post their SWPPP on their facility’s own website or submit additional information with their eNOI, which will be available to the public.

For the Internet option, operators would submit their SWP PP’s universal resource locator (URL) address to EPA with their eNOI and then post an updated SWPPP at least once a year. For facilities that elect to not post their SWPPPs on their website, they must submit the following additional information with
their NOI per part 7.3 of the permit: Onsite industrial activities and other potential sources of pollutants, including potential spill and leak areas; Pollutants of concern; Stormwater control measures you employ to comply with the non

- numeric technology

- bas ed effluent limits required in Part 2.1.2 and Part 8, and any other measures taken to comply with the requirements in Part 2.2 Water Quality

- Based Effluent Limitations. If you use polymers and/or other chemical treatments as part of your controls, you must identify the polymers and/or chemicals used and for what purpose; and Schedule for good housekeeping and maintenance and schedule for all inspections required in

Part 4.

Cost Impact Discussion EPA does not know how many facilities will not post their SWPPP online and instead choose to include SWPPP information in their NOI. However, for facilities that elect to provide additional information with their NOI, EPA estimates that copying this information from their SWPPP to the NOI form will take a
minimal amount of time (estimated to be an additional 1⁄2 hour). If all facilities do this, the total cost impact would be approximately $45,500 (2,268 facilities x 1⁄2 hour x $40/hr). To post a document to an existing website, EPA estimates a nominal expenditure of 5 minutes, which for 2,268 facilities would be approximately $7,500 (2,268 facilities x 1/12 hour x $40/hr).

Part 5.5

– Additional Documentation Requirements

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP 5.4 Additional Documentation Requirements. You are required to keep the following inspection, monitoring, and certification records with your SWPPP that together keep your records complete and up

- to

- date, and demonstrate your full compliance with the conditions of this permit:

• A copy of the NOI submitted to EPA along with any correspondence exchanged between you and EPA specific to coverage under this permit; A copy of the acknowledgment letter you receive from the NOI Processing Center or eNOI system assigning your permit tracking number; A copy of this permit (an electron ic copy easily 5.5 Additional Documentation Requirements.

You are r equired to keep the following inspection, monitoring, and certification records with your SWPPP that together keep your records complete and up

- to

date, and demonstrate your full compliance with the conditions of this permit: A copy of the NOI submitted to EPA along with any correspondence exchanged between you and EPA specific to coverage under this permit; A copy of the acknowledgment you receive from the eNOI system assigning your NPDES ID; A copy of this permit (an electr onic copy easily available to SWPPP personnel is also acceptable);Page 15 of 18

available to SWPPP personnel is also acceptable); Descriptions and dates of any incidences of significant spills, leaks, or other releases that resulted in discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S., through stormwater or otherwise; the circumstances leading to the release and actions taken in response to the release; and measures taken to prevent the recurrence of such releases (see Part 2.1.2.4);

• Records of employee training, including date training received (see Part 2.1.2.9);

Document ation of maintenance and repairs of control measures, including the date(s) of regular maintenance, date(s) of discovery of areas in
need of repair/replacement, and for repairs, date(s) that the control measure(s) returned to full function, and the justifi cation for any extended maintenance/repair schedules (see Part 2.1.2.3); All inspection reports, including the Routine Facility Inspection Reports (see Part 4.1), the Quarterly Visual Assessment Reports (see Part 4.2), and the Comprehensive Site Inspection Reports (see Part 4.3); Description of any deviations from the schedule for visual assessments and/or monitoring, and the reason for the deviations (e.g., adverse
weather or it was impracticable to collect samples within the first 30 minutes of a
measurab le storm event) (see Parts 4.2.1, 6.1.4, and 6.2.1.2); Description of any corrective action taken at your site, including triggering event and dates when problems were discovered and modifications occurred; Documentation of any benchmark exceedances
and ho w they were responded to, including either (1) corrective action taken, (2) a finding
that the exceedence was due to natural background pollutant levels, or (3) 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; Documentation to support any determination that pollutants of concern are not expected to be present above natural background levels if you discharge directly to im paired waters, and that such pollutants were not detected in your discharge or were solely attributable to natural background sources (see Part 6.2.4.2); and Documentation to support your claim that your Records of employee training, including date training received (see Part 2.1.2.8); Documentation of maintenance and repairs of control measures, including the date(s) of regular

maintenance , date(s) of discovery of areas in need of repair/replacement, and for repairs, date(s) that the control measure(s) returned to full function, and the justification for any extended maintenance/repair schedules (see Part 2.1.2.3); All inspection reports, i ncluding the Routine Facility Inspection Reports (see Part 3.1) and Quarterly Visual Assessment Reports (see Part 3.2); Description of any deviations from the schedule for visual assessments and/or monitoring, and the reason for the deviations (e.g., adver se weather or it was impracticable to collect samples within the first 30 minutes of a measurable storm event) (see Parts 3.2.1, 6.1.4, and 6.2.1.2); Description of any corrective action triggering event/condition listed in Part 4.1 and documented per Part 4.3; Documentation of any benchmark exceedances and the type of response to the exceedance you employed: (1) corrective action taken, (2) a finding
that the exceedance was due to natural background pollutant levels, or (3) a finding that no further pollu tant reductions were technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practice consistent with Part 6.2.1.2; Documentation to support any determination that pollutants of concern are not expected to be present above natural background levels if you discharge directly to impaired waters, and that such pollutants were not detected in your discharge or were solely attributable to natural background sources (see Part 6.2.4.2); and
Documentation to support yo ur claim that your facility has changed its status from active to inactive and unstaffed with respect to the requirements to conduct quarterly facility inspections (see Part 3.1), quarterly visual assessments (see Part 3. 2 ), and/or benchmark monitoring (se e Part 6.2.1.3).Page 16 of 18

facility has changed its status from active to

inact ive and unstaffed with respect to the requirements to conduct routine facility inspections (see Part 4.1.3), quarterly visual assessments (see Part 4.2.3), and/or benchmark monitoring (see Part 6.2.1.3).

Permit Change Discussion EPA requires documentation of various implementation activities, such as reports of routine facility inspections and descriptions of corrective actions, after facilities are authorized to discharge. This documentation is useful both for facility personnel and EPA (and other agencies) inspectors to assess overall performance of the control measures selected to meet the technology

- based and water quality

based effluent limits in the permit. The 2013 MSGP wa s revised to provide more clarity about what to report for spills or other releases, but the information reported is basically the same as in 2008.

Cost Impact Discussion
EPA assumes no additional cost for Part 5.5 . Facilities were required in the 2008 pe rmit to maintain SWPPP records that document spills to waters of the U.S. EPA sector fact sheets broadly address spills for all sectors. EPA assumes that facilities are already keeping spill logs consistent with this new requirement.

Part 7.1

– E lectroni c Reporting Requirement

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP The 2008 MSGP had the option to submit NOIs/NOTs, DMRs and Annual Reports either electronically or vial mailed hard copy. 7.1 Electronic Reporting Requirement

You must submit all NOIs, NOTs, NOEs, Annual R eports, Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), and other reporting information as appropriate electronically, unless you have received a waiver from your regional office based on one of the following conditions:

If your headquarters is physically located i n a geographic area (i.e., zip code or census tract)
that is identified as under

- served for
broadband Internet access in the most recent report from the Federal Communications Commission; or

If you have limitations regarding available
computer access or computer capability.

Waivers are only granted for a one

- time use for a single information submittal, i.e., an initial waiver does not apply for the entire term of the permit. If you need to submit information on paper after your first waiver, you

must a pply for a new waiver.

If you wish to obtain a waiver from submitting a report electronically, you must submit a request to your EPA Regional Office. EPA Regional Office contactPage 17 of 18 information can be found in Part 7.9. 1 of this permit. In that request you mu st document which exemption you meet, provide evidence supporting any claims, and a copy of your completed NOI form. A waiver may only be considered granted once you receive written confirmation from EPA or its authorized representative. Any paper version of a document or form for which you have been granted a waiver must be sent to the approving EPA Regional Office at the address in Part

7.9. 1

.

Permit Change Discussion
The electronic reporting requirement in the proposal mandates the use of the internet for submitting the kind of information operators must send to the NOI Center (NOIs, NOTs, No Exposure certifications, Annual Reports, Discharge Monitoring Reports). The 2008 MSGP had the option to submit such
information either electronically or by paper copy. Certain other information that is sent to EPA Regional
office s only is not subject to this provision.

Cost Impact Discussion EPA assumes no additional cost for the electronic reporting requirement , as the ability to do information

submittals represents a reduction of burden from producing hard copies and having them delivered

.

Part 7.5

– Annual Report

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP 7.2 Annual Report You must submit an annual report to EPA that includes the findings from your Part 4.3 comprehens ive site inspection and any corrective action documentation as required in Part 3.4. If corrective action is not yet completed at the time of submission of this annual
report, you must describe the status of any outstanding corrective action(s). In additio n to the information required in Parts 3.4 (Corrective Action Report) and 4.3.2 (Comprehensive Site Inspection Documentation), you must include the following information with your annual report:

- Facility name

- NPDES permit tracking number

- Facility phy sical address

- Contact person name, title, and phone number EPA strongly recommends that you submit this report using the Annual Reporting Form provided as Appendix I. You must submit the annual report to EPA within 45 days (postmark date) after conductin g the comprehensive site inspection to the address identified

in Part 7.6.1. 7.5 Annual Report You must submit an Annual Report to EPA electronically, per Part 7.2, by January 30 th containing information generated from the past calendar year. You must include the following in formation:

The results or a summary of your past year’s routine facility inspection documentation required (Part 3.1) and quarterly visual assessment documentation (Part 3.3). Information copied or summarized from the

corrective ac tion documentation required per Part 4 (if applicable). If corrective action is not yet completed at the time of submission of this Annual Report, you must describe the status of any outstanding corrective action(s). Regarding benchmark monitoring resulti ng in four quarter average exceedances, the rationale for why you believe that no further pollutant reductions are achievable (i.e., technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practices) (Part 6.2.1.2); and Any incidents of noncompliance observed or, if there is no noncompliance, a certification signed in accordance with Appendix B, Subsection 11 stating the facility is in compliance with thisPage 18 of 18 permit.

All information must be updated, as applicable, at le ast once per year and submitted according to the electronic reporting requirements of Part 1.2.

Permit Change Discussion The proposed MSGP requires all permittees to submit an annual report to EPA that contains a summary
of the routine site inspection and visual assessment findings and a summary of corrective actions required and/or taken during the previous year. The previous permit required reporting of the results of the comprehensive site inspection, which was essentially the same in formation as the routine inspection and quarterly visual inspection information in the proposed permit (corrective action documentation is unchanged in the proposal).

Cost Impact Discussion EPA assumes no additional cost to implement the 2013 MSGP A nnual R eport requirements. The documentation of the inspections, assessments and corrective actions, which comprise the information to be included in the Annual Report, is essentially unchanged from the previous permit. Because this
information will already h ave been generated under separate requirements in the permit , the labor required to put t his existing information in the Annual Report , either by cut

- and

- paste or as a summary

, will be the same as for the 2008 MSGP Annual Report.

Part 8

– Metals Benchmark Values for Saline Waters

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP A single set of benchmarks applied to both freshwaters
and saline waters. Various sections of Part 8.

Added separate benchmark values for facilities that discharge into saline waters, versus freshwaters

.

Permit Change Discussion For this permit, 10 benchmark values (arsenic, cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc) have been added for facilities that discharge into saline waters. These benchmarks represent the available acute ambient water quality criteria for priority toxic and non

priority pollutants in saltwater. These benchmark values reflect the toxicity of these metals in saline waters and replace the freshwater

- based criteria in the 2008 permit. In some cases, the saltwater criteria represent significant changes in the benchmarks for facilities discharging into saline waters. The values for arsenic, copper, cyanide, and nickel are lowered by an order of magnitude. The values for
cadmium and lead are incre ased by an order of magnitude, while the value for selenium is increased two orders of magnitude. Benchmark values for the other metals increase (mercury) or decrease (silver, and zinc) by smaller amounts

Cost Impact Discussion

EPA a ssume s no additional c ost for the saltwater benchmark

. NOI f acilities are not required to change their frequency of monitoring; they are just required to meet a benchmark that is now specific to the saltwater receiving water they are discharging into.