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 Rico, 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 gas 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 requirements 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 

pollution 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 2000 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 industrial 

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-authorized states including 

Massachusetts, Idaho, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Indian country, U.S. territories (including Puerto 

Rico and excluding the Virgin Islands), DC, and Federal facilities in Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and 

Washington.

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 and 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 many facilities will 
Page 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 depth 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 proposed 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 complying 

with the 2013 MSGP is:

- For New Facilities: $2,752

- For Existing Facilities: $2,199

These numbers were developed by updating previous 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................................................................................18
Page 3 of 18

Part 1.1.3 – Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges

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 nonstormwater component of your discharge is in 

compliance with Part 2.1.2.10:

...

Pavement wash waters where no detergents 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, (such 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 that 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

EPA 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 purchase 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 matter 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 drain 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 (2009) 

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 number of facilities directing pavement wash water to storm drains and surface waters

without treatment.

Part 1.1.4.8 – Eligibility for New Dischargers to Water Quality Impaired Waters

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 MSGP

1.1.4.7 New Discharges to Water Quality Impaired 

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. 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.

b.Prior to submitting your NOI, provide to the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office technical 
Page 5 of 18

and retain documentation of this finding with your 

SWPPP; 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 your 

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 established 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 

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.

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 documentation 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 exceedance 

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 pollutant 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 allocation 

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 eliminating all exposure to stormwater 

of the pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is impaired, or generating information 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 newly discharging operators, 

of which there are only typically about 50 a year under the MSGP, to document pollutants for which the 
Page 6 of 18

waterbody is impaired. The additional requirement in the proposed 2013 MSGP is to provide that 

documentation to EPA before submitting the NOI, which EPA assumes will be accomplished primarily via 

email. 

Part 1.1.4.10 – 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 media 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 and/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

The 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 implementation 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 facilities 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-site 
Page 7 of 18

conditions or existence of pollutants 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; contamination 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 

keeping exposed areas free of such materials or 

by intercepting them before they are 

discharged.

Plastic materials requirements: Facilities that handle 

pre-production plastic pellets are required to 

implement best management practices to eliminate

discharges of plastic in stormwater. 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 housekeeping 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 the 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 operators 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 incorporating 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 Discussion
Page 8 of 18

EPA assumes 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 elaborates 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 Sector 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.

You 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.*

Clean 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 any 

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. The 
Page 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 basins. EPA assumes that the majority of facilities do not have 

catch basins or these facilities discharge to municipal catch basins offsite. However, EPA can estimate 

the cleaning cost rate for a typical catch basin at a single facility. To develop this cost estimate, EPA used 

municipal catch basin cleaning costs1ranging 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 turnover 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, 

installation, 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, and 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.pdf
Page 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

Additional 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 permits 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 assumes 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 expected in the MSGP 2008 training.

Part 5.1 – Persons responsible for SWPPP Preparation

2008 MSGP Draft 2013 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 the 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 manufacturer’s specifications.” 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 possible 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 and 
Page 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 credentials 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 when the permit is fully complied with 

originally.

Cost Impact Discussion

EPA assumes 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 assistance 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 all 

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 Response 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 CWA 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 

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 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 

occur 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 and 

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 specify 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 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; 

Erosion and Sediment Control (Part 2.1.2.8) – If 
Page 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 requirements 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 employees 

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 event of spills.

Employee Training (see also Part 2.1.2.9). New documentation 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 Part 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 proposed 

new requirements clarify the existing requirements in the 2008 permit. A cost impact assumption for 

maintaining a spill log is discussed in Part 5.5.

EPA assumes 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 all 
Page 13 of 18

of an MS4 receiving discharges from the site; and

representatives of the U.S. Fish 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 

representatives 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 the 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 remain 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., final) 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 not 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 from 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, EPA 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 NOI 
Page 14 of 18

pursuant to Part 7.3. Confidential Business Information (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 SWPPP’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-based 

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 electronic copy easily 

5.5 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-todate, 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 electronic 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);

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, 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 

measurable 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 how 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 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 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, including 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., adverse 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 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 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 your 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 (see Part 6.2.1.3).
Page 16 of 18

facility has changed its status from active to 

inactive 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 qualitybased effluent limits in the permit. The 2013 MSGP was 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 permit 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 – Electronic 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 Reports, 

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 in 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 apply 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 contact 
Page 17 of 18

information can be found in Part 7.9.1 of this permit. In 

that request you must 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 

offices 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 comprehensive 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 addition 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 physical 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 conducting 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 30th containing 

information generated from the past calendar year. 

You must include the following information:

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 action 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 resulting 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 this 
Page 18 of 18

permit.

All information must be updated, as applicable, at least 

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 information 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 Annual Report 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 have been generated under separate requirements in the permit, the labor 

required to put this 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 nonpriority 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 increased 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 assumes no additional cost for the saltwater benchmark. NOI facilities 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.