# The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reissuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP)

Environmental Assessment (EA)

January 2015MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

2 

## Abbreviations and Acronyms

BAT Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BCT Best Conventional Control Technology
BMP Best Management Practices
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BPJ Best Professional Judgment
BPT Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
CEQ Council of Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm Centimeter

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CWA Clean Water Act
EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELG Effluent Limit Guidelines

EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FR Federal Register
kg/cu m Kilogram per Cubic Meter

lb Pound
mg/L Milligram per Liter

MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NeT NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSPS New Source Performance Standards
POTWs Publicly Owned Treatment Works
ppm Parts Per Million
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

s.u. Standard Unit

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIC Standard Industrial ClassificationMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

3 SWPPP Stormwater pollution prevention plan

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WQS Water Quality StandardsMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

4 

## Table of Contents

1. Introduction

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

1.1 Background

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

1.2 Summary of Key Environmental Compliance Requirements

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

1.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act

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

1.2.2 Integration of Other Environmental Statutes and Regulations

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

1.3 Purpose and Need

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

1.4 Summary of the Proposed Action

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

1.4.1 Summary of Changes from the 2008 MSGP

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

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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

2.1 Introduction

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

2.2 No Action

............................................................................................................................... ..... 20

2.3 Proposed Action

.......................................................................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Coverage under the Permit

.................................................................................................. 20

2.3.2 Control Measures and Effluent Limitations

........................................................................ 20

2.3.3 Corrective Actions

.............................................................................................................. 38

2.3.4 Inspections and Monitoring Requirements

......................................................................... 39

2.4 Reporting and Recordkeeping

..................................................................................................... 41

2.5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs)

..................................................................... 41

3.0 Affected Environment

..................................................................................................................... 43

3.1 Introduction

............................................................................................................................... .. 43

3.2 Water Resources

......................................................................................................................... 43

3.2.1 Surface Water

...................................................................................................................... 44

3.2.2 Groundwater

....................................................................................................................... 45

3.2.3 Drinking Water

.................................................................................................................. 46

3.3 Biological Resources

................................................................................................................... 46

3.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

................................................................................... 47

3.4 Cultural Resources

...................................................................................................................... 48

4.0 Environmental Consequences

......................................................................................................... 49

4.1 Introduction

............................................................................................................................... .. 49

4.1.1 No Action

............................................................................................................................ 49MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

5 4.2 Implementation of Control Measures and Effluent Limitations

................................................. 49

4.3 Water Resources

......................................................................................................................... 50

4.4 Biological Resources

................................................................................................................... 51

4.4.1 Vegetation and Wetlands

.................................................................................................... 51

4.4.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

................................................................................... 51

4.5 Cultural Resources

...................................................................................................................... 56

4.6 Cumulative Impacts

.................................................................................................................... 57

5.0 Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Plans, Policies and Regulations

....................... 58

5.1 Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Cer tifications by State Water Quality Agencies

.. 58

5.2 Endangered Species Act of 1973

................................................................................................ 58

5.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

............................................................... 58

5.4 Environmental Justice

................................................................................................................. 59

6.0 References

............................................................................................................................... ........ 60

Appendix A

............................................................................................................................... .................. 62MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

6 

### Tables Table 1-1. Stormwater-Specific Effluent Limi tations Guidelines with New Source Performance

Standards

............................................................................................................................... ........................ 9 Table 2-1. 2015 MSGP Areas of Coverage

............................................................................................... 14 Table 2-2. Industrial Sectors Covered by the 2015 MSGP

......................................................................... 17 Table 2-3. MSGP Regulated Discharges of Industrial Activities

............................................................... 18

Table 2-4. Number of New Source Permitt ees Subject to ELG and NSPS under the 2008 MSGP

........... 18 Table 2-5. Number of 2008 MSGP Permittees per State, Subject to ELGs and NSPS

............................. 19 Table 2-6. ELG for Sector A (40 CFR Part 429, Subpart I)

...................................................................... 28 Table 2-7. SubSector A3-Specific Benchmarks

........................................................................................ 28 Table 2-8. Subcategories in the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category

.......................................................... 29 Table 2-9. ELGs for Sector C Discharged in Non-Process Wastewater (40 CFR Part 418, Subpart A)

... 29 Table 2-10. SubSector C1-Specific Benchmarks

....................................................................................... 30 Table 2-11. Hardness Dependent Benchmarks

.......................................................................................... 30 Table 2-12. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 443, Subpart A

................................................................................... 31 Table 2-13. SubSector D1-Specific Benchmarks

...................................................................................... 31 Table 2-14. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 411, Subpart C

................................................................................... 32 Table 2-15. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 445, Subpart A

................................................................................... 32 Table 2-16. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 445, Subpart B

................................................................................... 33

Table 2-17. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 423

..................................................................................................... 34 Table 2-18. SubSector O1-Specific Benchmarks

...................................................................................... 35

Table 2-19. ELG for 40 CFR Part 449

....................................................................................................... 36 Table 2-20. Sector S-Specific Benchmarks

............................................................................................... 37 Table 3-1. Number of Native Plant and Vertebrate Animal Species in United States

............................... 47MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

7 

## 1. Introduction

1.1 Background
Stormwater runoff is a widespread problem affecti ng surface water quantity and quality. Stormwater can pick up debris, chemicals, fertilizers, dirt, and othe r pollutants and flow into a storm sewer system or directly to a lake, stream, pond, river, wetland, or coast al water. In most instances, flows that enter a storm sewer system are discharged untreated into n earby water bodies that are often used for swimming, fishing and providing drinking water. In rural ar eas, pollutants from agriculture and livestock operations can include nutrients and sediment, which can result in algal blooms and fish kills when discharged to lakes or estuaries. In urban areas, pollutants include nutrients, sediments, petroleum, and other organic and inorganic chemicals. These flow increases and pollutant loads can impair waterbodies, degrade biological habitats, pollute drinki ng water sources, and cause flooding.



### Regulatory History

To address the role of stormwater in causing or contributing to water quality impairments, in 1987 Congress added Section 402(p)(3)(A) to the Clean Wa ter Act (CWA). The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality
standards for surface waters 1 . Under the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates discharges through various polluti on control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry or water quality standards for surface waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.

The NPDES program is the primary federal vehicle to regulate the quality of the nation’s waterbodies through the control of discharges. The program was originally developed to reduce pollutants from industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage di scharges. All stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity that discharge or propose to discharge stormwater to a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) or discharge directly to waters of the United States are required to obtain an NPDES permit. The Phase I rule in 1990 established the con cept of a permitting exemption for industrial facilities with little or no likelihood of discharging contamin ated stormwater; however, this exemption was not well-defined or required to be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority 2 . The Phase II rule in December 1999 clarified and expanded the no exposure certification requirement to require industrial facilities with no exposure of industrial processes to stormwater to submit a written certification notifying

EPA or the authorized state that the facilit y wishes to be excluded from the NPDES program 3

.


### NPDES Permit Requirements

Under the requirements of the NPDES program, a point source may be authorized to discharge pollutants into waters of the United States by obtaining a permit. A permit provides two types of control: technology-based limitations (based on the technological and economic ability of dischargers in the same category to control the discharge of pollutants in wastewater) and water quality-based limitations (to protect the quality of the specific waterbody receiving the discharge).

1 33 United States Code [U.S.C] Section1251 et seq

2 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 122.26

3 64 Federal Register [FR] 68722MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

8 Technology-based effluent limitations include best practicable control technology currently achievable (BPT) for conventional pollutants, and best ava ilable technology economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and non-conventional pollutants 4 . In addition to BPT and BAT requirements for industrial categories, the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Co ntrol Act Amendments established new source performance standards (NSPS) or best available demonstrated control technology including where practicable a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants 5 . The NSPS represent state-of-the-art control technologies for new sources because the permittees have the opportunity to install the most efficient production processes and the latest in treat ment technologies during construction.

To complement its work on technology-based limita tions, EPA initiated a national policy in February 1984 to control toxics using a water quality approach. On February 4, 1987, Congress amended the CWA with a strategy to accomplish the goal of meeting state water quality standards (WQS). The 1987 Water Quality Act required all states to identify waters that were not expected to meet WQS after technologybased controls on point source were imposed. Each st ate then had to prepare individual control strategies to reduce toxics from point and nonpoint sources to meet the WQS. Among other measures, those plans were expected to address the control of polluta nts beyond technology-based levels (EPA 2010).

Facilities can meet these limitations, referred to as ef fluent limitation guidelines (ELGs), by implementing control measures such as best management practices (B MPs) that control stormwater associated with industrial activity. EPA has issued effluent guidelin es for 57 industrial categories. Of the 57 effluent limitation guidelines, eight are applicable to stor mwater discharges covered under the MSGP, and seven include new source performance standards (MSGP 2013).



### Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)

Due to the large number of facilities requiring permits, EPA and most of the NPDES-authorized states issue general permits to regulate stormwater discharges. General permits simplify the process for dischargers to obtain authorization to discharge, pr ovide permit requirements for any discharger that files a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered, and re duce the administrative workload for NPDES permitting
authorities.

EPA issued the first Multi-Sector General Permit (M SGP) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity on September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50804) to cover the ten categories of industrial activities identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i)-(xi) (c onstruction activities are covered in another permit) within an individual state, Indian Country, territory , or facility with a federal operator where EPA is the NDPES permitting authority. The MSGP covers a period of 5 years with the most recent MSGP being issued on September 29, 2008 (73 FR 56572) and expired at midnight on September 29, 2013 . EPA
maintains an Electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) database for industrial facilities that need to apply for coverage under the MSGP. According to the eNOI data from the 2008 MSGP, an estimated 2,500 active permitted facilities were covered under the MS GP as of September 2014 (EPA 2014).

EPA is proposing to reissue the MSGP, which expired September 29, 2013, authorizing the discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharg es associated with industrial ac tivities where EPA is the permitting authority. On September 27, 2013, EPA published in the Federal Register the proposed 2013 MSGP and

4 CWA 301(b)(1)(A) and (2)(A)

5 CWA section 306(a)MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

9 the public comment period on the proposed permit ended December 26, 2013.



### 1.2 Summary of Key Environmental Compliance Requirements
1.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a federal statute requiring the identification and analysis of potential environmental impacts of proposed federal actions before those actions are taken. The EPA’s implementing regulation for NEPA is found in 40 CFR Part 6, Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act

.

Under Section 511(c) of the CWA, EPA’s issuance of a new source NPDES permit is subject to NEPA 6

. “New sources” are defined as any facility—building, st ructure, facility or installation—that discharges pollutants or could discharge pollutants where c onstruction commenced after promulgation of the applicable ELGs or after proposal of the applicable ef fluent guidelines, but only if the effluent guidelines are promulgated within 120 days 7 . Table 1-1 includes industries covered by the MSGP that have applicable federal ELGs and NSPSs that perm ittees are responsible for complying with:

Table 1-1. Stormwater-Specific Effluent Limi tations Guidelines with New Source Performance
Standards

Regulated Discharge 40 CFR Section MSGP

Sector New Source Date

Discharges resulting from spray down or intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage areas Part 429, Subpart

I A 1/26/81

Runoff from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities that comes into contact with any raw materials, finished product, by-products or waste products (SIC 2874) Part 418, Subpart

A C 4/8/74

Runoff from asphalt emulsion facilities Part 443, Subpart

A D 7/28/75

Runoff from material storage piles at cement manufacturing facilities Part 411, Subpart

C E 2/20/74

Runoff from hazardous wast e and non-hazardous waste

landfills Part 445, Subparts A and

B K, L 2/2/00

6 NEPA, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.

7 40 CFR 122.2MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

10 Table 1-1. Stormwater-Specific Effluent Limi tations Guidelines with New Source Performance
Standards

Regulated Discharge 40 CFR Section MSGP
Sector New Source Date

Runoff from coal storag e piles at steam electric generating facilities Part 423 O 11/19/82 (10/8/74) 8

Runoff containing urea from airfield pavement deicing at existing and new primary airports with 1,000 or more annual non-propeller aircraft departures Part 449 S 6/15/12

This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the pote ntial impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative considered by EPA in the i ssuance of a new source NPDES general permit; the MSGP. If the analyses presented in the EA indicate that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant environmental impacts, a FO NSI will be prepared. If significant environmental issues are identified that cannot be mitigated below si gnificant, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared, or the Proposed Action would be abandoned and no action would be taken.



### 1.2.2 Integration of Other Environmen tal Statutes and Regulations To comply with NEPA, the planning and decision- making process for actions proposed by federal agencies involves consideration of other relevant environmental statutes and regulations. The NEPA process does not replace procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and regulations. It addresses them collectively, which en ables the decision-maker to have a comprehensive view of major environmental issues and requirements asso ciated with the Proposed Action. According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA should be in tegrated “to the fullest extent possible with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by ag ency so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively” 9

. This EA will examine potential impacts of the Prop osed Action and No Action Alternative on physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources. These resour ces were identified as being potentially affected by the Proposed Action and include applicable elements of the human environment that are prompted for review by Executive Order (EO), regulation, or policy. Where useful to provide better understanding, key provisions of the statutes and EOs will be discu ssed in more detail in the text of the EA.



### 1.3 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to regulate stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities, as required by CWA Section 402(p). Th e Proposed Action is necessa ry because the current MSGP and authorization to discharge expired Sept ember 29, 2013. Under EPA’s NPDES regulations,

8 NSPS promulgated in 1974 were not removed via the 1982 regulation; therefore wastewaters generated by Part 423- applicable sources that were New Sources under the 1974 regulations are subject to the 1974 NSPS.

9 40 CFR 1500.2(c)MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

11 reissuance of the MSGP is necessar y to ensure industrial discharges can be covered under the general permit in accordance with EPA’s regulated effluent limitations through control measures and BMPs to protect receiving waters.



### 1.4 Summary of the Proposed Action
This section provides a basic summary of the proposed action; the issuance of the 2015 MSGP and an overview of the changes from the 2008 MSGP. Sec tion 2.0 includes a detailed description of the proposed MSGP and alternatives considered under NEPA.

EPA is proposing to issue an updated MSGP to provi de permit coverage for stormwater discharges from 29 sectors of industrial activity in areas where EPA is the permitting authority and has made the MSGP available for coverage. EPA’s MSGP applies in areas of the country where EPA remains the NPDES permitting authority and has made the permit availabl e for coverage, which includes four states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico), the Di strict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, all other U.S. territories with the exception of the Virgin Islands, f acilities operated by federal operators in four states (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and Washington), most Indian Country lands, and a couple of other specifically designated activities in specific states (e .g., oil and gas activities in Texas and Oklahoma).

The proposed 2015 MSGP is similar to the 2008 MSGP , and is structured in nine parts: general requirements that apply to all facilities (e.g., eligib ility of discharges, effluent limitations, stormwater pollution prevention plan requirements, monitoring a nd reporting requirements), industrial sector-specific conditions, and specific requirements applicable to f acilities within individual states or Indian Country. Additionally, the appendices provide forms for the NO I, the Notice of Termination, the Conditional No Exposure Exclusion, Discharge Monitoring Report, and the annual report, as well as step-by-step procedures for determining eligibility with respect to protecting historic properties and endangered species, and for calculating site-specific, hardness- dependent benchmarks. The proposed MSGP also addresses stormwater discharges to impaired water bodies with and without an approved total maximum daily load (TMDL).



### 1.4.1 Summary of Changes from the 2008 MSGP

The 2015 MSGP includes a number of new or modifi ed requirements, and thus differs from the 2008 MSGP in various ways. The following list summari zes the more significant changes to the MSGP.

1.4.1.1 Information Required for Notices of Intent (NOIs)

The 2015 MSGP revises the information required in NOIs to provide EPA with adequate information to determine eligibility, to determine whether additi onal water quality-based cont rol measures are necessary to comply with the permit’s effluent limits, and to enable EPA to inform the operator of its specific monitoring requirements. Operators now need to incl ude location information for each stormwater outfall they discharge from, identify if the facility dischar ges to saltwater and the hardness of the receiving waterbody (if subject to benchmark monitoring for meta ls), indicate whether the facility discharges to one
of the federal CERCLA sites that are identified in the permit, as well as provide general information from their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) if the SWPPP is not posted online. The EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool (NeT) will use out fall latitude and longitude information for each outfall to automatically determine the receiving wate rs that the site discharges to and the receiving waters’ impair ment status.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

12 1.4.1.2 Electronic Reporting Requirements

Electronic reporting is required in the 2015 MSGP. Elect ronic reporting is necessary to create efficiencies and reduce the burden of submitting information to the Agency. Recognizing there may be cases that make electronic submittals of information impossibl e, EPA has included a paper option that operators may use after they ask for and are granted a waiver by their EPA Region. EPA intends for the waiver to be case-by-case and not be a blanket waiver that c overs the remaining term of the permit for other required information submittals. A ll paper submittals must be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
office.

1.4.1.3 Endangered Species Requirements

EPA has finalized changes to the procedures operato rs must follow to establish their eligibility with regard to protection of threatened and endangere d species and critical habitat as a result of EPA’s consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Sp ecies Act (ESA). These changes are necessary to ensure that the endangered and threatened species eligibility criteria in the permit are adequately protective of such species, and to ensure the opera tors are making accurate e ligibility determinations.

1.4.1.4 Effluent Limit Clarifications

Several of the effluent limits in the 2015 MSGP include a greater level of specificity in order to make the requirements more clear and to enable permittees to better comply with the effluent limits. The effluent
limits for which EPA has made cl arifications include requirement s for minimizing exposure, good housekeeping, maintenance, spill prevention and response procedures, and employee training.

1.4.1.5 Inspections EPA consolidated the comprehensive site inspection and routine facility inspection procedures into one set of procedures to eliminate redundancies and reduce burden.

1.4.1.6 Corrective Actions

Although the 2008 MSGP required corrective actions , EPA has clarified in the 2015 MSGP which conditions for corrective actions require a SWPPP review, included and sometimes modified the deadlines to clearly identify what actions must be ta ken by the deadlines, and rewritten and clarified the reporting requirements following corrective actions.

1.4.1.7 SWPPP Availability

The 2015 MSGP requires permittees to provide on the NOI form either a URL for their SWPPP or selected information from the SWPPP. The purpose of this is to provide greater SWPPP access to the public, EPA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service and Na tional Marine Fisheries Services (the Services).
The selected information from the SWPPP that would have to be included in the NOI form includes: onsite industrial activities that are exposed to stormwater, including potential spill and leak areas; pollutants or pollutant constituents associated with ea ch industrial activity exposed to stormwater that could be discharged in stormwater, and any aut horized non-stormwater discharges listed; control measures employed to comply with the non-numeric technology-based effluent limits, and any otherMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

13 measures taken to comply with the requirements of Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations; a schedule for good housekeeping and maintenance ; and a schedule for all inspections required.

1.4.1.8 Benchmark Monitoring

For the 2015 MSGP, EPA has included additional non-hardness dependent metals benchmarks for facilities that discharge into saline waters. The add ition of these benchmarks was necessary to provide an appropriate indicator of the performance of the me asures undertaken to meet the effluent limitations contained in the permit where stormwater is discharge d into saline waters. Benchmark values in the 2008
MSGP for these metals were based on acute or chr onic aquatic life freshwater criteria. These additional
saline benchmark values are based on available acute ambient water quality criteria for arsenic, cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc.

1.4.1.9 Industry Sector –Specific Requirements

The following changes were made to industry-speci fic parts of the MSGP, which describes requirements tailored to specific industry sectors:

Sector A, Timber Products – Discharges resulting from uncontaminated spray down or intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage areas is an allowed non-stormwater discharge, providing the
effluent limitation is met. To accommodate situ ations where facilities use water from a waterbody that operators intend to return to the waterbody following spraying /wetting, the permit contains an allowance or credit for pollutants originally in the waterbody prior to use and discharge.

Sector G, Metal Mining – As with the 2008 MSGP, this permit provides coverage to operators for construction and exploration phase activities. Befo re 2008 those activities were required to be covered separately under the Cons truction General Permit (CGP). To facilitate such coverage, additional requirements have been added that are consistent with EPA’s recently issued
Construction General Permit and th e Construction and Development (C&D) Effluent Guidelines and
Standards.

Sector H, Coal Mining – As with Sector G, additional requirements have been added that are consistent with EPA’s recently i ssued Construction General Permit.

Sector J, Mineral Mining and Dressing – As with Sectors G and H, additional requirements have
been added that are consistent with EPA’s recently issued Construction General Permit.

Sector S, Air Transportation – Requirements have been added based on the final Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) for jet and airport deicing operations. Also, the 2015 MSGP clarifies airport operators’ responsibilities and permit requirements that airport authorities may conduct on behalf of airport tenants.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

14 

## 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Introduction
The current 2008 MSGP expired on September 29, 2013. Therefore EPA is considering taking an action
to reissue the MSGP to regulate stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities, as required by CWA Section 402(p)

. According to EPA’s electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) database, an estimated 2,701 active permitted facilities we re covered under the 2008 MSGP as of September 2014 (EPA 2014). As part of the NEPA process, the No Action alte rnative and reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action must be considered. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint and support the unde rlying purpose and need for the proposed action. Alternatives deemed infeasible were not analyzed fu rther. EPA identified the following alternatives to evaluate—renew the MSGP (the Proposed Action) or do not renew the MSGP (the No Action Alternative). Section 2.2 describes the No Action Alternative and Section 2.3 describes the Proposed Action, including a detailed description of the permit.

Geographic Scope The 2015 MSGP provides coverage for classes of point source discharges that occur in areas not covered by an approved state NPDES program. EPA rema ins the NPDES permitting authority for 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, facilities operated by Federal Operators in four states (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and Wash ington), most Indian Country lands and a couple of other specifically designated activities in specific states (e.g., oil and gas activities in Texas and Oklahoma) (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1. 2015 MSGP Areas of Coverage

Permit Number MSGP Areas of Coverage
IDR050000 State of Idaho, except Indian Country lands

MAR050000 Commonwealth of Massachu setts, except Indian Country
NHR050000 State of New Hampshire
NMR050000 State of New Mexico, except Indian Country

DCR050000 District of Columbia

PRR050000 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

ASR050000 American Samoa

GUR050000 Island of Guam

JAR050000 Johnston Atoll
MWR050000 Midway Island and Wake Island

NIR050000 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Indian Country
AKR05I000 Indian Country lands within the State of Alaska

AZR05000I Indian Country within the State of Arizona, including Navajo Reservation lands in

New Mexico and UtahMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

15 Permit Number MSGP Areas of Coverage
CAR05000I Indian Country within the State of California

COR05I000 Indian country within the State of Co lorado, as well as the portion of the Ute

Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico
CTR05000I Indian Country within the State of Connecticut
IAR05I000 Indian Country within the State of Iowa

IDR05000I Indian Country lands within the State of Idaho, except Duck Valley Reservation lands, which are covere d under Nevada permit
KSR05I000 Indian Country within the State of Kansas
LAR05000I Indian Country within the State of Louisiana
MAR05000I Indian Country within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
MIR05000I Indian Country within the State of Michigan
MNR05000I Indian Country within the State of Minnesota
MTR05I000 Indian Country within the State of Montana
NER05I000 Indian Country within the State of Nebraska, except Pine Ridge Reservation lands

NVR05000I Indian Country within the State of Nevada , including the Duck Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort McDermitt Reservation in Or egon and the Confederated Tribes of the

Goshute Reservation in Utah

NMR05000I Indian Country within the State of New Mexico, except Ute Mountain Reservation

lands that are covered under Colorado permit COR05000I and Navajo Reservation

lands that are covered unde r Arizona permit AZR05000I

NDR05I000 Indian Country within the State of North Dakota, as well as that portion of the Standing Rock Reservation located in South Dakota (except for the portion of the

lands within the former boundaries of th e Lake Traverse Reservation which is covered under South Dakota pe rmit SDR05000I listed below)
OKR05000I Indian Country within the State of Oklahoma

ORR05000I Indian Country lands within the State of Oregon, except Fort McDermitt Reservation lands, which are covere d under Nevada permit
RIR05000I Indian Country within the State of Rhode Island

SDR05I000 Indian Country within the State of South Dakota, as well as the portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation located in Nebraska and the portion of the lands within the former

boundaries of the Lake Traverse Reservation lo cated in North Dakota (except for the Standing Rock Reservation which is co vered under North Dakota permit NDR05000I listed above)
TXR05000I Indian Country within the State of Texas

UTR05I000 Indian Country within the State of Ut ah, except Goshute and Navajo Reservation

lands
WAR05000I Indian Country lands within the State of WashingtonMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

16 Permit Number MSGP Areas of Coverage

WIR05000I Indian Country within the State of Wisconsin, except those on Sokaogon Chippewa Community lands
WYR05I000 Indian Country within the State of Wyoming
Federal Facility

COR05F000 Areas in the State of Colorado, except tho se located on Indian country, subject to industrial activity by a federal Operator
DER05000F Areas in the State of Delaware subject to industrial activity by a federal Operator
VTR05000F Areas in the State of Vermont subject to industrial activity by a federal Operator

WAR05000F Areas in the State of Washington, except those located on Indian Country lands, subject to industrial activity by a federal Operator

Other

OKR05000F Facilities in the State of Oklahoma not under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality or the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, except those on Indian Country. EPA jurisdiction facilities include SIC Codes 1311, 1381, 1382, 1389, and 5171.

TXR05000F Facilities in the State of Texas not under the jurisdiction of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, except those on Indian Country. EPA-jurisdiction facilities include SIC Codes 1311, 1321, 1381, 1382, and 1389 (other than oil field service company “home base” facilities).



### Categories of Facilities That C an Be Covered Under this Permit

The 2015 MSGP is available for stormwater disch arges from the following 29 sectors of industrial activity (Sector A – Sector AC), as well as any discharge not covered under the 29 sectors (Sector AD) that has been identified by EPA as appropriate fo r coverage. The sector descriptions are based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and Indu strial Activity Codes consistent with the definition of stormwater discharge associated with industrial ac tivity at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i-ix, xi). The sectors
are listed below:MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

17 Table 2-2. Industrial Sectors Covered by the 2015 MSGP

Sector A – Timber Products Sector P – Land Transportation

Sector B – Paper and Allied Products Manufacturing Sector Q – Water Transportation

Sector C – Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing Sector R – Ship and Boat Building or Repairing
Yards

Sector D – Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials
Manufactures and Lubricant Manufacturers Sector S – Air Transportation Facilities

Sector E – Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing Sector T – Treatment Works

Sector F – Primary Metals Sector U – Food and Kindred Products

Sector G – Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Sector V – Textile Mills, Appare l, and other Fabric Products Manufacturing

Sector H – Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related
Facilities Sector W – Furniture and Fixtures

Sector I – Oil and Gas Extraction Sector X – Printing and Publishing

Sector J – Mineral Mining and Dressing Sector Y – Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Industries

Sector K – Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal Sector Z – Leather Tanning and Finishing

Sector L – Landfills and Land Application Sites Sector AA – Fabricated Metal Products

Sector M – Automobile Salvage Yards Sector AB – Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial Machinery

Sector N – Scrap Recycling Facilities Sector AC – Electronic, Electrical, Photographic and Optical Goods

Sector O – Steam Electric Generating Facilities Sector AD – Reserved for Facilities Not Covered Under Other Sectors and Designated by the
Director

Under Section 511(c) of the CWA, only new s ource NPDES permits are subject to EPA’s NEPA regulations. Therefore, the scope of activities addressed in this EA is limited to only those industrial stormwater discharges from the eight sectors which ha ve applicable federal EL Gs and NSPSs listed in
Table 2-3.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

18 Table 2-3. MSGP Regulated Discharges of Industrial Activities

Regulated Discharge 40 CFR Section MSGP
Sector New
Source

Date Discharges resulting from spray down or intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage areas Part 429, Subpart I A
1/26/81 Runoff from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities that comes into contact with any raw materials, finished product, by-products or waste product Part 418, Subpart
A C

4/8/74

Runoff from asphalt emulsion facilities Part 443, Subpart
A D
7/28/75 Runoff from material storage piles at cement manufacturing facilities Part 411, Subpart
C E
2/20/74

Runoff from hazardous waste and non-hazardous
waste landfills Part 445, Subparts
A & B K & L
2/2/00 Runoff from coal storage piles at steam electric generating facilities Part 423 O 11/19/82 (10/8/74) 1
Runoff containing urea from airfield pavement deicing at existing and new primary airports with 1,000 or more annual non-propeller aircraft departures Part 449 S

5/16/12

1 NSPS promulgated in 1974 were not removed via the 1982 regulation; therefore wastewaters generated by Part 423-applic able sources that were New Sources under the 1974 regulations are subject to the 1974 NSPS.

Approximately 176 permittees covered under the 20 08 MSGP are subject to ELGs and NSPS (EPA 2014). Table 2-4 presents the number of the 176 permittees subject to each ELG and NSPS from the 2008 MSGP and their corresponding Sector.

Table 2-4. Number of New Source Permittees Subject to ELG and NSPS under the 2008 MSGP

Regulated Discharge MSGP
Sector/
Subsector Total Permittees
from 2008 MSGP 1

Discharges resulting from spray down or intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage areas A 17 Runoff from Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities that comes into contact with any raw materials, finished product, by-products or waste product C 3

Runoff from asphalt emulsion facilities D 53

Runoff from material storage piles at cement manufacturing facilities E 53MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

19 Regulated Discharge MSGP
Sector/

Subsector Total Permittees
from 2008 MSGP 1

Runoff from hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste
landfills K

& L 44

Runoff from coal storage piles at steam electric generating facilities O 6 Runoff containing urea from airfield pavement deicing at existing and new primary airports with 1,000 or more annual non-propeller aircraft departures S -

Total 176

Table 2-5 identifies the number of permittees subject to ELGs and NSPS by state that were covered as of September 2014. It also identifies which states have f acilities that are on Indian land or a federal facility. Over 90% of permittees cove red over the five year period (2008-2013) were not located on Indian land or a federal facility (EPA 2014).

Table 2-5. Number of 2008 MSGP Permittees per State, Subject to ELGs and NSPS

State Total Indian Land (“Y”) Federal Facility (“Y”) Not Federal or
Indian Facility

AZ 1 1 0 0

GU 3 0 0 3

ID 14 3 0 11

MA 31 0 0 31

NH 14 0 0 14

NM 65 1 3 61

PR 47 0 0 47

UT 1 1 0 0

Total 176 6 3 167

Source: EPA

2014

It is assumed that a similar number of facilities will se ek coverage under the reissued MSGP and therefore the eNOI data for the 2008 permit is used as a baselin e for determining the scope and potential impacts of the proposed action alternative.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

20 

### 2.2 No Action
The No Action Alternative provides a baseline agains t which the effects of a Proposed Action and all other alternatives are compared. The No Action Alte rnative is to not renew the 2008 MSGP. If the No Action Alternative is implemented, no new sources would be authorized to discharge under the 2008 MSGP and only currently covered facilities would be allowed to legally discharge under the permit. After that time, all new permittees at industrial fac ilities would be required to apply for coverage under individual NPDES permits. Based on data from 2008 through 2013, the No Action Alternative would result in the issuance of approximately 250 individu al permits (~50 new facilities/year) for stormwater discharge not previously covered under a NPDES permit (EPA 2014).



### 2.3 Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to issue an updated MSGP to provi de permit coverage for stormwater discharges from industrial facilities in areas where EPA is the permittin g authority and has made the MSGP available for coverage. The 2015 MSGP authorizes operators of fac ilities eligible for permit coverage to discharge

stormwater from industrial activities to waters of th e United States in accordance with the requirements in the permit, including effluent limitations, inspection and monitoring requirement s, and other conditions set forth in the permit.

The 2015 MSGP is similar to the 2008 MSGP, and is st ructured in nine parts: general requirements that apply to all facilities (e.g., eligibility of discharges, effluent limitations, stormwater pollution prevention plan requirements, monitoring and reporting requi rements), industrial sector-specific conditions, and specific requirements applicable to f acilities within individual states or Indian Country. Additionally, the appendices provide forms for the NOI, the Notice of Termination, the Conditional No Exposure Exclusion, Discharge Monitoring Report, and the an nual report, as well as step-by-step procedures for determining eligibility with respect to protecting historic properties and endangered species, and for calculating site-specific, hardness-dependent benchm arks. The 2015 MSGP also addresses stormwater discharges to impaired waterbodies with and without an approved total maximum daily load (TMDL).



### 2.3.1 Coverage under the Permit As mentioned above, the 2015 MSGP provides covera ge for classes of point source discharges for 29 sectors of industrial activity that occur in areas not covered by an approved state NPDES program. EPA notes that facilities located in EPA Region 4 are not covered by the 2015 MSGP, any dischargers needing coverage in Region 4 must be c overed by an individual permit.

As with previous permits, to be eligible for c overage under the 2015 MSGP , operators of industrial facilities must meet the eligibility provisions of th e permit. If they do not meet all the eligibility requirements, operators must not submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered by the MSGP, and, unless they obtained coverage for those discharges under another permit, those discharges of stormwater
associated with industrial activ ity needing permit coverage will be in violation of the CWA.



### 2.3.2 Control Measures and Effluent Limitations

The 2015 MSGP contains effluent limits that corres pond to required levels of technology-based control (BPT, BCT, BAT) for various discharges under the CW A. Where an effluent limitation guideline (ELG) or New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) applies to discharges authorized by this permit, the requirement must be incorporated into the permit as an effluent limitation. These limits are included, as applicable, in the sector-specific requirements of the permit. Where EPA has not yet issued an effluentMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

21 limitation guideline, EPA determines the appropriate technology-based level of control based on best professional judgment (BPJ, sometimes also referred to as "best engineering judgment") of the permit
writer 10 . For the 2015 MSGP, most of the technology-based limits are based on BPJ decision-making because no ELG applies.

Stormwater discharges can be highly intermittent, are usually characterized by high flows occurring over relatively short time intervals, and carry a variety of pollutants whose source, nature and extent varies. This is in contrast to process wast ewater discharges from a particular industrial or commercial facility where the effluent is more predictable and can be mo re effectively analyzed to develop numeric effluent limitations. Therefore, EPA includes non- numeric effluent limits in NPDES permits 11 , such as the MSGP, such as requirements mandating facilities to “min imize” various types of pollutant discharges, or to implement control measures unless “infeasible.” EPA has determined that the technology-based
numeric and non-numeric effluent limits in the 20 15 MSGP, taken as a whole, constitute BPT for all pollutants, BCT for conventional pollutants, and BA T for toxic and nonconventional pollutants that may be discharged in industrial stormwater.

The BAT/BPT/BCT effluent limits in the 2015 MSGP are expressed as specific pollution prevention requirements for minimizing the pollutant levels in the discharge. EPA added greater clarity and specificity in some of the effluent limits because in past MSGPs they were written in very general terms, leaving operators wide latitude in interpreting what constituted complian ce, which lead to widely varying levels of stormwater program effectiveness. EPA co ntinues to assert that the combination of pollution prevention and structural management practices re quired by these limits are the best technologically available and economically practicable and achieva ble controls, as well as the most environmentally sound way to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff fro m industrial facilities.

Industrial facility operators are required to select, d esign, install and implemen t site-specific control measures to meet these limits; however, EPA generally does not mandate the specific stormwater control measures that operators must utilize to meet the tec hnology-based effluent limits in the permit. The permit provides operators the flexibility to determine their s ite-specific controls, taking into consideration what controls are most suited for their industry in term s of economic practicability and technology availability, and in some cases, considerations such as availabl e space and safety. Depending on the sector, there are both non-numeric technology-based effl uent limits and numeric effluent limitations based on the effluent limitations guidelines.

The specific limits in the MSGP emphasize “low-t ech” controls, such as minimizing exposure to stormwater, regular cleaning of outdoor areas where industrial activities may take place, proper maintenance, etc. However, sometimes treatment devices or constructed/installed controls may be necessary, particularly where a facility might otherwi se cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. The MSGP requires operators to consider certain factors when selecting and designing control measures, including:

10 CWA section 402(a)(1); 40 CFR 125.3

11 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400, 403 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (noting that " section 502(11) defines 'effluent

limitation' as ' any restriction' on the amounts of pollutants discharged, not just a numerical restriction"; holding that section of

CWA authorizing courts of appeals to review promulgation of "any effluent limitation or other limitation" did not confine the

court's review to the EPA's establishment of numerical limitations on pollutant discharges, but instead authorized review of

other limitations under the definition) (emphasis added). In Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

, the D.C. Circuit stressed that when numerical effluent limitations are infeasible, EPA may issue permits with conditions designed to reduce the level of effluent discharges to acceptable levels.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

22  Preventing stormwater from coming into contact with polluting materials is generally more effective and less costly than trying to remove pollutants from stormwater;

 Using combinations of control measures is mo re effective than using control measures in isolation for minimizing pollutants;

 Assessing the type and quantity of pollutants, including their potential to impact receiving water quality, is critical to determining which c ontrol measures will achieve the limits in the permit;

 Minimizing impervious areas at the facility and infiltrating runoff onsite (via bioretention cells, green roofs, pervious pavement, etc. ) can reduce runoff, and improve ground water recharge and stream base flows in local st reams (although care must be taken to avoid groundwater contamination);

 Attenuating flow using open ve getated swales and natural de pressions can reduce in-stream impacts of erosive flows;

 Conserving and/or restoring riparian buffers w ill help protect streams from stormwater runoff and improve water quality; and

 Using treatment interceptors (e.g., swirl separat ors, oil-water separato rs, sand filters) may be appropriate in some instances to mi nimize the discharge of pollutants.

2.3.2.1 Non-numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits The 2015 MSGP requires permittees to comply w ith non-numeric technology-based effluent limits, expressed narratively pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(k), by implementing stormwater control
measures. The achievement of these non-numeric limi ts will result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants from stormwater discharges. Such limits were developed using EPA’s best professional judgment (BPJ). There are requirements applicable to all discharges associated with industrial activity for all sectors, while additional sector-specific e ffluent limits may be applicable as well.

Throughout the permit, the term “minimize” means” reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practice.” The following is a summary of the permit’s non-numeric technology-based effluent limits:

Minimize Exposure This part requires permittees to limit the exposure of manufacturing, processing, and material storage areas to stormwater in order to minimize pollutant di scharges by either locating industrial materials and activities inside or protecting them with storm-resist ant coverings. Limiting contact with precipitation can
reduce the need for control measures to treat or otherwise reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Examples include covering materials or activities wi th temporary structures (e.g., tarps) when wet weather is expected or moving materials or activ ities to existing or new permanent structures (e.g., buildings, silos, sheds). Even a simple practice su ch as keeping a dumpster lid closed can be very effective. In minimizing exposure, permittees must also:

 Use grading, berming, or curbing to prevent runo ff of contaminated flows and divert run-on away from these areas;

 Locate materials, equipment, and activities so that potential leaks and spills are contained or able to be contained or diverted before discharging;

 Clean up spills and leaks promptly using dry met hods (e.g., absorbents) to prevent the discharge of pollutants;MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

23  Store leaky vehicles and equipment indoors or, if stored outdoors, use drip pans and absorbents;

 Use spill/overflow protection equipment;

 Perform all vehicle and/or equipment cleaning ope rations indoors, under cover, or in bermed areas that prevent runoff and run-on and al so that capture any overspray; and

 Drain fluids from equipment and vehicles that w ill be decommissioned, and, for any equipment and vehicles that will remain unused for extended periods of time, inspect at least monthly for
leaks.

Good Housekeeping This part requires that all exposed areas that are potential pollutant sources be kept clean which should help a facility meet water quality standards. Good housekeeping is an inexpensive way to maintain a clean and orderly facility and keep contaminants out of stormwater discharges. Often the most effective first step towards minimizing pollution in stormwat er from industrial sites simply involves common sense improvements to a facility’s basic housekeeping meth ods. A clean and orderly work area can reduce the possibility of accidental spills caused by mishandli ng of chemicals and equipment and well-maintained material and chemical storage areas can reduce the possibility of stormwater mixing with pollutants.

There are some simple procedures operators can impl ement to meet the good housekeeping effluent limit, including improved operation and maintenance of indu strial machinery and processes, improved materials storage practices, better materials inventory contro ls, more frequent and regular clean-up schedules, maintaining well organized work areas, and educatio n programs for employees about of these practices. At a minimum, to comply with this effluent limit permittees must:

 Sweep or vacuum at regular intervals, or alte rnatively, wash down the area and collect and/or treat, and properly dispose of the washdown water;

 Store materials in appropriate containers;

 All dumpsters with a lid must remain closed wh en not in use. For dumpsters and roll off boxes that do not have lids and could leak, ensure that discharges have a control (e.g., secondary containment, treatment). In no cases can there be dry weather discharges from dumpsters or roll off boxes;

 Minimize the potential for waste, garbage, and floatable debris to be discharged by keeping exposed areas free of such materials or by in tercepting them before they are discharged.

The MSGP also includes a new plastic materials re quirement for facilities that handle pre-production plastic (“nurdles”) to implement BMPs to eliminate such plastic discharges in stormwater. EPA also recommends that containers that are potential sources of stormwater pollution be stored away from direct traffic routes, are stacked according to manufacturer’s specifications, and are stored on pallets or other similar devices to prevent corrosion.

Maintenance This describes how permittees must maintain all stormw ater control measures so they remain effective. Permittees must comply with the fo llowing maintenance requirements:

 Performing inspections and preventive maintenan ce of stormwater drainage, source controls, treatment systems, and plant equipment and system s that could fail and result in contamination of
stormwater;

 Diligently maintaining nonstructural contro l measures (e.g., keep spill response supplies available, personnel appropriately trained);MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

24  Inspecting and maintaining baghouses at least qua rterly to prevent the escape of dust from the system and immediately removing accumulated dust at the base of the exterior bag house;

 Cleaning catch basins when the depth of debris reaches two-thirds (2/3) of the sump depth and keeping the debris surface at least 6 inches below the outlet pipe;

If permittees find that their control measures are in need of maintenance, they must conduct necessary maintenance immediately. If control measures n eed to be repaired or replaced, permittees must immediately take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until the final repair or replacement can be implemented, includi ng cleaning up any contaminated surfaces so that the material will not be discharged during subsequent stor m events. Final repairs/replacement of stormwater controls should be completed as soon as feasible but must be no later than the timeframe established in the permit for corrective actions, i.e., within 14 days or, if that is infeasible, no longer than 45 days.

Where possible, EPA encourages permittees to clean catch basins prior to the debris depth reaching 2/3 in
order to avoid a BMP failure. EPA also added baghouses to highlight the need for their inspection and maintenance, because baghouses can be very signifi cant sources of pollutants. EPA encourages permittees to inspect and maintain baghouses more frequently th an quarterly and encourages the use of baghouse leak detectors so that problems are detected as soon as possible.

Spill Prevention and Response Procedures This requires that the potential for stormwater expos ure from leaks, spills and other releases, which are major sources of stormwater pollution, be minimized. In addition to preventing spills and leaks, of this effluent limit also has requirements for after a sp ill/release occurs, to limit environmental damage. EPA encourages operators to identify potential spill areas and keep an inventory of ma terials handled, used and disposed. This information would be valuable for comp lying with the requirement to specify the material handling procedures, storage requirements, contai nment or diversion equipment, and spill cleanup procedures that will minimize the potential for spills/rel eases and, in the event of a spill/release, ensure a proper and timely response. To comply with this effluent limit, permittees must:

 Plainly label containers (e.g., “Used Oil,” “Spe nt Solvents,” “Fertilizers and Pesticides”) that could be susceptible to spillage or leakage to encourage proper handling and facilitate rapid response if spills or leaks occur;

 Implement procedures for material storage a nd handling, including the use of secondary containment and barriers between material storage a nd traffic areas, or a similarly effective means designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these areas;

 Develop training on the procedures for expeditious ly stopping, containing, and cleaning up leaks, spills, and other releases. When needed, ex ecute such procedures as soon as possible;

 Keep spill kits on-site, located near areas where spills may occur or where a rapid response can be made; and

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

The MSGP also specifies that when a leak, spill or other release containing a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity established under e ither 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, or 40 CFR 302, occurs during a 24-hour period , the permittee must notify the National Response Center as soon as there is knowledge of the disch arge. State or local requirements may necessitate reporting spills or discharges to local emergency response, public health, or drinking water supply agencies. Contact information must be in loca tions that are readily accessible and available.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

25 In addition to implementing spill prevention and response measures, EPA also encourages permittees to implement controls that will minimize the potential for leaked or spilled material from storage tanks to be discharged into receiving waterbodies. EPA encourages MSGP permittees with material storage tanks to implement controls such as the fo llowing to both minimize the potential for stormwater contamination and to minimize the potential for direct disch arges from storage tank spills or leaks:

 Secondary containment : For all chemical liquids and petroleum products that are held in a storage area, tank or other container, store the fluids within an impermeable secondary containment area with a retention capacity of at least 110% of the volume of the largest tank or container, or 10% of the total volume of all tanks and containers in the area, whichever is larger. There should be no overflow from the secondary containment area, which should be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that the materials can be recovered and so that polluting materials cannot escape directly or indirectly to an y public sewer system or to surface waters or ground water. Records should be maintained that document all such tanks and stored materials and their associated secondary containment area.

 Secondary containment valves : Secondary containment area valves that could provide stormwater and retained fluids access to a stormwater conveyance system should be controlled by manually activated valves or other similar devi ces (these should be secured and remain closed with a locking mechanism). Stormwater that accumulates in the containment area should be visually inspected to ensure no leaks or spills have occurred before release of the accumulated
stormwater. Records should be maintained that document the individual making the observation, the description of the accumulated stormwater, and the date and time of the release.

This effluent limit also requires that all industrial equipment and systems be ke pt in effective operating condition in order to minimize pollutant discharges. Therefore, regular maintenance and self-inspections must be conducted for all storage tanks and seconda ry containment areas. Permittees must look for leaks/spills, cracks, corrosion, etc., to identify defi ciencies and/or problem components such as fittings, pipe connections and valves. For any deficien cies identified, permittees must conduct the necessary maintenance, or if applicab le, take corrective action.

Erosion and Sediment Controls This requires operators to minimize pollutant dischar ges from erosion by stabilizing exposed soils at the facility in order to minimize pollutant discharg es and placing flow velocity dissipation devices at discharge locations. Velocity dissipation should contro l channel and streambank erosion and scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points. Permittees are also required to use structural and non-structural controls to minimize the discharge of sediment. EPA now requires that whenever polymers and/or other chemical treatment will be used for erosion control, the polymers and/or chemicals and their purpose must
be identified in the SWPPP.

The types of erosion controls for exposed areas opera tors should consider first include seeding, mulching and sodding to prevent soil from becoming dislodged. Sediment control practices such as silt fences, sediment ponds, and stabilized entrances trap sediment after it has eroded. Sediment control practices, such as flow velocity dissipaters and sediment catchers, must be used to back up erosion control practices. EPA acknowledges that portions of some industrial facilities are intended to be left unvegetated or unstabilized. For example, sizable unpaved earthen ar eas are common at large steel mills. For such areas, compaction of the soil, covering with gravel, and/or application of a soil binder may be adequate erosion
control measures.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

26 Management of Runoff This requires operators to divert, infiltrate, reuse, contain, or otherwise reduce stormwater runoff to minimize pollutants in the discharge, and to employ pr actices that direct the flow of stormwater away from areas of exposed materials or pollutant sources. Such practices can also be used to divert polluted
runoff to natural areas or locations where other kinds of treatment occurs. To meet this effluent limit, operators may consider vegetative swales, collecti on and reuse of stormwater, inlet controls, snow management, infiltration devices, and wet detention/retention basins.

Salt Storage Piles or Pile Containing Salt This requires that piles completely or partially comp rised of salt be enclosed or covered in order to minimize pollutant discharges. Operators must also implement appropriate measures to minimize the exposure of the piles during the adding to or removing from processes. Piles do not need to be enclosed or covered per this permit if stormwater runoff from the piles is not discharged or if discharges from the piles are authorized under another NPDES permit.

Options for meeting the salt pile effluent limit incl ude covering the piles or eliminating the discharge from such areas of the facility. Pr eventing exposure of piles to stormwater or run-on also eliminates the economic loss from materials being dissolved and wa shed away. A permanent under-roof storage facility is the best way to protect chemicals from precipitation and runoff, but where this is not possible, salt piles can be located on impermeable bituminous pads and covered with a waterproof cover.

Employee Training This requires operators to train all employees who wo rk in areas where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, or who are responsible for implementing activities necessary to meet the limits and conditions of the permit. The permit specifies the types of personnel and the tasks they perform that must be trained, so that they understand the MSGP ’s requirements and their specific responsibilities with respect to those requirements (e.g., personnel who are responsible for the design, installation, maintenance, and/or repair of controls (including pollution prev ention measures). For those personnel needing training, the following areas must be cove red, if applicable to the person’s duties:

 An overview of what is in the SWPPP;

 Spill response procedures, good housekeeping, maintenance requirements, and material management practices;

 The location of all controls on the site required by the permit, and how they are to be maintained;

 The proper procedures to follow with respect to the permit’s pollution prevention requirements;
and

 When and how to conduct inspections, record app licable findings, and take corrective actions.

Training sessions should be conducted at least annually to assure adequate understanding of the objectives of the control measures and the individual responsib ilities of each employee. More frequent training may be appropriate at facilities with high employee turn over or where stormwater programs are more complicated or multi-faceted. Often, training could be a part of routine employee meetings for safety or fire protection. Contractor personnel also must be trained in relevant aspect s of stormwater pollution prevention, as appropriate.

Non-Stormwater Discharges This specifies that the presence of non-stormwater disc harges must be evaluated, and any non-stormwater discharges not explicitly authorized in the MSGP or covered by another NPDES permit must beMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

27 eliminated. Other than the exclusive list of allowable non-stormwater discharges listed in the permit, nonstormwater discharges requiring NPDES permit c overage are not authorized under the MSGP.

Additionally, the permit requires that all wash wate r, with the exception of discharges from pavement wash water and routine building washdown drain to a sanitary sewer, sump or other appropriate collection system (i.e., not the stormwater drainage system). Additionally, the discharge of vehicle and equipment wash water, including tank cleaning operations, is not authorized by the permit. These wastewaters must be covered under a separate NPDES permit, discharged to a sanitary sewer in acco rdance with applicable industrial pretreatment requirements, or disposed of otherwise in accordance with applicable law.

Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking of Industrial Materials This requires operators to control ge neration of dust and off-site tracking of raw, final, or waste materials in order to minimize pollutant discharges. Dust control practices can reduce the activities and air movement that cause dust to be generated. Control m easures to minimize the generation of dust include:

 Vegetative Cover. In areas not expected to handle vehicle traffic, vegetative stabilization of disturbed soil is often desirable. Such a prac tice reduces wind velocity at ground level, thus reducing the potential for dust to become airborne.

 Mulch. Mulching can be a quick and effective means of dust control for a recently disturbed area.

 Wind Breaks. Wind breaks are barriers (either natural or constructed) that reduce wind velocity through a site which then reduces the possibility of suspended particles. Wind breaks can be trees or shrubs left in place during site clearing or constructed barriers such as a wind fence, snow fence, tarp curtain, hay bale, crate wall or sediment wall.

 Stone. Stone can be an effective dust deterrent in areas where vegetation cannot be established.

 Spray-on Chemical Soil Treatments (Palliatives). Examples of chemical adhesives include anionic asphalt emulsion, latex emulsion, resin-wa ter emulsions and calcium chloride. Chemical palliatives should be used only on mineral soils. When considering chemical application to suppress dust, determine whether the chemical is biodegradable or water-soluble and what effect its application could have on the surrounding environment, including waterbodies and wildlife.

To reduce vehicle tracking of materials, the operator s hould keep stored materials or materials that could be spilled away from all roads within the site. Specifi c measures such as setting up a wash site or separate pad to clean vehicles prior to their leaving the site may be effective at minimizing pollutant discharges from vehicle tracking as well (provided the wash water is not discharged).

2.3.2.2 Numeric Effluent Limitations Based on Effluent Limitations Guidelines Where an ELG or NSPS applies, the requirement must be incorporated into the permit as an effluent limitation. The MSGP holds permittees responsible for complying with ELGs and NSPS that apply to facilities covered under the MSGP from the following be low stormwater discharges (and in Table 2-3). These effluent limits are included as applicable in th e sector-specific requirements of the MSGP, and are

summarized below. Part 8 of the MSGP is where a pplicable ELGs, NSPS, and monitoring requirements specific to each sector are identified.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

28 40 CFR Part 429, Subpart I: Timber Processing, Di scharges from Spray down or Intentional Wetting of Logs (Sector A)

Subpart I—Wet Storage Subcategory

This subpart applies to discharges to waters of the United States and to the introduction of process wastewater pollutants into POTWs from the storage of unprocessed wood, i.e., the storage of logs or
roundwood before or after removal of bark in self-c ontained bodies of water (mill ponds or log ponds) or the storage of logs or roundwood on land during whic h water is sprayed or deposited intentionally on the logs (wet decking). The ELGs for discharges from sp raydown or intentional wetting of logs are listed in Table 2-6. Compliance with these ELGs is based on discharges from these industrial activities independent of commingling with any other wastes treams that may be covered under this permit.

Table 2-6. ELG for Sector A (40 CFR Part 429, Subpart I)

Regulated Parameter Control ELG

pH BPT, BAT NSPS Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 s.u.

Debris (woody materials such as bark, twigs, branches heartwood, or sapwood) BPT, BAT NSPS No discharge of debris that will not pass through a 2.54-cm (1-inch) diameter round opening

Source: 40 CFR Part 429, Subpart I

cm: centimeter
s.u.: standard unit

Sector-Specific Benchmarks: Timber product facilities are required to monitor their stormwater discharges for the pollutants of concern listed in Table 2-7.

Table 2-7. SubSector A3-Specific Benchmarks

Subsector Parameter Benchmark Monitoring

Concentration

A3 . Log Storage and Handling (SIC 2411) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 100 mg/L

Source: MSGP 2013

40 CFR Part 418, Subpart A: Fertilizer Manufactu ring Point Source Category (Sector C)

The Fertilizer Manufacturing ELGs are applicable to contaminated non-process wastewater discharged from the specific subcategories listed in Table 2-8. The seven subcategories are based on the type of fertilizer produced.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

29 Table 2-8. Subcategories in the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category

Title Description Phosphate Subcategory a Manufacture of sulf uric acid by sulfur burning, wet-process phosphoric acid, normal superphosphate, triple superphosphate, and ammonium phosphate. Ammonia Subcategory Manufacture of ammonia. Urea Subcategory Manufacture of urea. Ammonium Nitrate Subcategory Ma nufacture of ammonium nitrate. Nitric Acid Subcategory Production of nitric acid in concentrations up to 68 percent.

Ammonium Sulfate Production Subcategory Production of ammonium sulfate by the synthetic process and by coke oven by-product recovery.

Source: 40 CFR Part 429

Subpart A--Phosphate Subcategory, Runoff from Phosphate Fertilizer The provisions of this subpart are applicable to di scharges resulting from the manufacture of sulfuric acid by sulfur burning, wet-process phosphoric acid, nor mal superphosphate, trip le superphosphate and ammonium phosphate, except that the provisions of Parts 418.12, 418.13, and 418.17 shall not apply to wet-process phosphoric acid processes that were under cons truction either on or before April 8, 1974, at plants located in the State of Louisiana (52 FR 28432 , July 29, 1987). The concentration of pollutants discharged in contaminated non-process wastewater sha ll not exceed the values are listed in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9. ELGs for Sector C Discharged in Non-Process Wastewater (40 CFR Part 418, Subpart A)

Regulated Parameter Control Maximum daily (mg/L) Average 30 Consecutive Day Maximum (mg/L)

Total phosphorus (as P) BPT, NSPS 105 35

Fluoride BPT, NSPS 75 25

Source: 40 CFR Part 418

Sector-Specific Benchmarks: The benchmarks in Table 2-10 apply to the specific subsector of Sector C and any co-located industrial activities.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

30 Table 2-10. SubSector C1-Specific Benchmarks

Subsector Parameter Benchmark Monitoring

Concentration

C1 . Agricultural Chemicals, runoff from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing

facilities that comes into contact withany raw materials, finished product, byproducts or waste products (SIC 2874) Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L
Total Lead Hardness Dependent
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L
Total Zinc Hardness Dependent

Phosphorus 2.0 mg/L

Source: MSGP 2013

The benchmark values of some metals are dependent on water hardness. For these parameters, permittees must determine the hardness of the receiving water, to identify the applicable hardness range for determining their benchmark value a pplicable to their facility. The ranges occur in 25 milligram per Liter (mg/L) increments. Hardness Dependent Benchmarks are in Table 2-11.

Table 2-11. Hardness Dependent Benchmarks

Water Hardness

Range (mg/L) Lead

(mg/L) Zinc (mg/L)

0-25 0.014 0.04

25-50 0.023 0.05

50-75 0.045 0.08

75-100 0.069 0.11

100-125 0.095 0.13

125-150 0.122 0.16

150-175 0.151 0.18

175-200 0.182 0.20

200-225 0.213 0.23

225-250 0.246 0.25

250+ 0.262 0.26

Source: MSGP 2013MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

31 40 CFR Part 443, Subpart A. Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt), Runoff from Asphalt Emulsion Facilities (Sector D)

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of asphalt paving and roofing emulsions. Activities, such as material handling and storage, equipment maintenance and cleaning, industrial processing or other operations th at occur at industrial facilities are often exposed to stormwater. The runoff from these areas may dischar ge pollutants directly into nearby waterbodies or indirectly via storm sewer systems, thereby degr ading water quality. The ELGs for runoff from Asphalt
Emulsion Facilities are listed in Table 2-12.

Table 2-12. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 443, Subpart A

Regulated

Parameter Control Daily Maximum Average 30 Consecutive Day

Maximum (kg/cu m) of

runoff (lb/1,000 gal)

of runoff (kg/cu/m) of

runoff (lb/1,000 gal)

of runoff

Oil and

Grease BPT 0.020 0.167 0.015 0.125

Oil and

Grease BAT, NSPS 0.015 0.125 0.010 0.083

pH BPT, BAT, NSPS Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 s.u.

TSS BAT, NSPS 0.023 0.188 0.015 0.125

Source: 40 CFR 443 kg/cu m: kilogram per cubic meter lb: pound

Compliance with these effluent limits is to be de termined based on discharges from these industrial activities independent of commingling with any othe r wastestreams that may be covered under this permit.

Sector-Specific Benchmarks: The benchmarks in Table 2-13 apply to the specific subsector of Sector D and any co-located industrial activities.

Table 2-13. SubSector D1-Specific Benchmarks

Subsector Parameter Benchmark Monitoring

Concentration



### D1 . Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials (SIC 2951, 2952) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 100 mg/L

Source: MSGP 2013MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

32 40 CFR Part 411, Subpart C. Cement Manufacturi ng, Subpart C Runoff from Material Storage Piles at Cement Manufacturing Facilities (Sector E)

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the runoff of rainfall which derives from the storage of materials including raw materials, intermediate products, finished products

and waste materials which are used in or derived from the manufacture of cement. The ELGs for runoff from Material Storage Piles are listed in Table 2-14.

Table 2-14. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 411, Subpart C Regulated

Parameter Control 10-year, 24-hour Rainfall Event

pH BPT, NSPS, BAT Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 s.u.

TSS BPT, NSPS, BAT Not to exceed 50 mg/L

Source: 40 CFR Part 411

40 CFR Part 445, Subparts A & B. Runoff from Hazardous Waste and Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills (Sectors L & K)

Subpart K – Sector K – Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities. The requirements in Subpart K apply to stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal fa cilities. The landfills industry includes facilities that operate waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) treatment or disposal facilities or perform the collecting and/or hauling of waste materials within a local area, combined with the operation of waste treatment or disposal facilities. The landfills can either be commerc ial or municipal. The estimated toxicity of the Landfills Category discharges results mainly from the discharges of metals (excluding iron).

Subpart A—RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill Except as provided in § 445.1, this subpart applies to discharges of wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 264, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N-(Landfills); and 40 CFR part 265, Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazar dous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N- (Landfills). Table 2-15 provides the ELGs for hazardous waste landfills.

Table 2-15. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 445, Subpart A

Regulated Parameter Control Maximum daily (mg/L, ppm) Maximum monthly avg. (mg/L, ppm)

BOD 5 BPT , BCT, NSPS 220 56
TSS BPT, BCT, NSPS 88 27
Ammonia (as N) BPT, BAT, NSPS 10 4.9

α -Terpineol BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.042 0.019
Aniline BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.024 0.015
Benzoic acid BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.119 0.073MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

33 Regulated Parameter Control Maximum daily (mg/L, ppm) Maximum monthly avg. (mg/L, ppm)

Naphthalene BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.059 0.022

p -Cresol BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.024 0.015
Phenol BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.048 0.029
Pyridine BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.072 0.025
Arsenic BPT, BAT, NSPS 1.1 0.54
Chromium BPT, BAT, NSPS 1.1 0.46
Zinc BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.535 0.296
pH BPT, BCT, NSPS Within range 6.0-9.0 s.u.

Source: 40 CFR Part 445, Subpart A ppm: parts per million BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Subpart L –Sector L–Landfills, Land Application Sites, and Open Dumps The requirements in Subpart L apply to stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity from Landfills and Land Application Sites and Open Dumps. 

### This permit may authorize stormwater discharges for Sector L facilities associated with waste disposal at landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive or have received indus trial waste, including sites subject to regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA. This permit does not cover discharges from landfills that receive only municipal wastes. Table 2-16 provides the ELGs for non-hazardous waste landfills. Discharges from non-hazardous waste landfills subject to effluent lim itations in 40 CFR Part 445 Subpart B.

Table 2-16. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 445, Subpart B

Regulated Parameter Control Maximum daily (mg/L, ppm) Maximum monthly avg. (mg/L, ppm)

BOD 5 BPT , BCT, NSPS 140 37
TSS BPT, BCT, NSPS 88 27
Ammonia (as N) BPT, BAT, NSPS 10 4.9

α -Terpineol BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.033 0.016
Benzoic acid BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.12 0.071

p -Cresol BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.025 0.014
Phenol BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.026 0.015
Zinc BPT, BAT, NSPS 0.20 0.11
pH BPT, BCT, NSPS Within range 6.0-9.0 s.u.

Source: 40 CFR Part 445, Subpart BMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

34 40 CFR Part 423. Steam Electric, Runoff from Coal Storage Piles at Steam Electric Power Generating Facilities (Sector O)

The Steam Electric Power Generating ELGs apply to plants utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with a thermal cycle em ploying the steam water system as the thermodynamic medium. In order to ensure a consistent supply of co al for steam generation, plants typically maintain an outdoor reserve (25-40 days worth). Some coal-fi red plants may operate more than one coal pile depending on the location of the boilers and whether different types of coal are used or blended. Rainwater and melting snow contacting the coal pile generates a waste stream that contains pollutants associated with the coal, referred to as coal pile r unoff. The quantity of runoff depends upon the amount of precipitation, the physical location and layout of the pile and the extent to which water infiltrates the ground underneath the pile (EPA 1982).

The type and amount of contaminants generated in co al pile runoff depends upon the coal characteristics and the residence time of water within the coal p ile. The rainfall generating the coal pile runoff can dissolve inorganic salts or cause chemical reactions in the coal piles, which will be carried away in the runoff. Coal pile runoff is typically acidic due to the oxidation of iron sulfide, which produces sulfuric acid, and ferric hydroxide or ferric sulfate. It may also contain high concentrations of copper, iron, aluminum, nickel, and other constituents present in coal (EPA 1982). Plants typically direct coal pile runoff wastewaters to a holding pond along with stormwater runoff from other areas near the coal pile. Because the transfers to the coal pile runoff are in termittent depending on rainfall, and the transfers from the coal pile runoff pond are based on the level in th e pond, the residence time for treating the coal pile runoff is highly variable (EPA 1982).

Table 2-17 lists the ELGs for runoff from coal storage piles per 40 CFR 423. Any untreated overflow from facilities designed, constructed, and operated to treat the volume of coal pile runoff which is associated with a 10 year, 24 hour rainfall event shall not be subject to the limitations in Table 2-17 (47 FR 52304).

Table 2-17. ELGs for 40 CFR Part 423

Regulated Parameter Control 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event

TSS BPT, NSPS 50 mg/L 2 max concentration for any time

pH BPT Within range 6.0-9.0 s.u.

Source: 40 CFR Part 423

Sector-Specific Benchmarks: Table 2-18 identifies benchmarks that apply to the specific subsectors of Sector O. These benchmarks also appl y any co-located in dustrial activities.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

35 Table 2-18. SubSector O1-Specific Benchmarks

Subsector Parameter Benchmark Monitoring

Concentration

O1. Steam Electric Generating Facilities (Industrial Activity Code “SE”) Total Iron 1.0 mg/L

Source: MSGP 2013

40 CFR Part 449. Wastewater Discharges Associ ated with Aircraft Deicing (Sector S) The requirements apply to wastewater associated with the deicing of airfield pavement at primary airports and establish NSPS for wastewater discharges associated with aircraft deicing for a subset of new airports. Airports vary widely in the types of aircraft using their facilities and in total number of aircraft departures during the winter deicing season. EPA focused the scope of the rule on those airports that have higher levels of non-propelle r-driven aircraft departures (1,000 or more annually) since nonpropeller-driven aircraft are more likely than other ty pes of aircraft (e.g., propeller-driven aircraft) to continue operating during inclement winter weather. The type of non-propeller-driven aircraft also makes a difference in the quantity of aircraft deicing fl uids released to the environment since larger nonpropeller-driven aircraft require larger quantities of aircraft deicing fluids than smaller non-propellerdriven aircraft for both deicing and anti-icing. Ai rports with larger numbe rs of non-propeller-driven aircraft and other aircraft departures will use larger quantities of deici ng products (EPA 2012a).

The rule does not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established in genera l permits or for individual permits on a site-specific

basis (EPA 2012a)

. EPA expects compliance with this regulation to reduce the discharge of deicingrelated pollutants by 16 million poun ds per year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule at $3.5 million (EPA 2012a).

Airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environm ent vary widely among individual airports based on airport climate, product performance, cost, availa bility, and compatibility with aircraft and airport infrastructure. Airports vary widely in the nature of their deicing pollutant collection and treatment practices. All airports discharge some or all of their deicing pollutants to surface waters near the airport. Some airports collect a portion of their deicing wastew aters and either treat them on-site or send them offsite to a POTW or other facility for treatment a nd discharge. Other airports discharge stormwater containing deicing pollutants to soil and groundwat er. Many airports have a combination of these discharge conditions. Deicing collection and treatme nt systems vary in design and effectiveness by airport. The configuration of airport grounds a nd infrastructure relative to surface waters, pervious surfaces, and groundwater also affect deicing pol lutant dispersion in the environment (EPA 2012a).

Airports apply pavement deicers to large expanses of airfield pavement found at many airports, including aprons, gate areas, taxiways, and runways. Due to this widespread product dispersion, large quantities of airport stormwater frequently contain some level of deicing pollutants. The large quantities and dispersed
nature of contaminated stormwater make it difficult for airports to collect and treat more than a fraction of released deicing product. For this reason, most air ports discharge the majority of their deicing pollutants to the environment (EPA 2012a).MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

36 Deicing pollutants in stormwater lost from collection and delivery systems typically enter the soil column where they degrade, accumulate or eventually enter groundwater if present on airport grounds. Groundwater and the pollutants it contains may ultimat ely discharge to nearby surface waters or flow beyond airport property lines. In these situations, infi ltration may slow and reduce pollutant discharges to surface waters, but not eliminate them. In other cases, pollutants in groundwater may degrade before they discharge to surface waters or cross airport property lines (EPA 2012a).

Deicing pollutants can also degrade during stormwater transport and storage. Degradation rates are slower under cold temperatures and increase as temperat ures rise. Systems that discharge stormwater more slowly, particularly those that hold stormwater until later in the year when average temperatures rise, allow greater opportunity for degradation of deic ing pollutants prior to discharge. The degradation process can remove some chemicals of concern in deicing discharges (40 CFR Part449).

Table 2-19 lists the numeric effluent limitations representing the BAT and NSPS in accordance with EPA’s technology-based ELG for airfield paveme nt and aircraft deicing (40 CFR Part449).

Table 2-19. ELG for 40 CFR Part 449

Regulated Parameter Control Daily Maximum (mg/L)

Ammonia (as N) BAT, NSPS 14.7

Source: 40 CFR Part 449 Airfield Pavement Deicing Pollutant

The 40 CFR Part 449 ELG also requires the following non-numeric requirements that are applicable to discharges covered under the MSGP:

 Airfield Pavement Deicing. Existing and new primary airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures (“non-propeller aircraft”) that discharge wastewater associated with airfield pavement deicing commingled with stormwater must eith er use non-urea-containing deicers or meet the
effluent limit in Table 2-19.

 Aircraft Deicing. Airports meeting the definition of a new source (“new airports”) with 10,000 annual departures located in cold climate zones mu st collect 60 percent of aircraft deicing fluid after deicing. See 40 CFR 449.11 for the Airport ELGs requirements for this new source category. Discharges of the collected aircraft deicing fluid directly to waters of the U.S. are not eligible for coverage under the MSGP.

New airports subject to the numeric effluent limitatio ns must comply with the monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements outlined in 40 CFR 449.20(a)(1) and (2)

Sector-Specific Benchmarks: Table 2-20 identifies benchmarks that apply to Sector S and any colocated industrial activities.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

37 Table 2-20. Sector S-Specific Benchmarks

Subsector Parameter Benchmark Monitoring

Concentration

S, For airports where a single permittee, or a combination ofpermitted facilities use more than 100,000 gallons of glycolbased deicing chemicals and/or 100 tons or more of urea on an average annual basis, monitor the first four parameters in
ONLY those outfalls that collect runoff from areas where deicing activities occur (SIC 4512-4581). BOD 5 1 30 mg/L

COD 1 120 mg/L
Ammonia 1 2.14 mg/L

pH 1 6.0 - 9.0 s.u.

Source: MSGP 2013

1 These are deicing-related parameters. Collect the four benc hmark samples, and any require d follow-up benchmark samples, during the timeframe when deicing activities are occurring.

2.3.2.3 Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBEL) are designed to protect water quality by ensuring that WQS are met in the receiving water 12 . In accordance with the 2015 MSGP, permittees are required to control their discharge as necessary to meet applic able WQS. EPA expects that compliance with the other conditions in this permit (e.g., the technology- based limits, control measures, etc.) will result in discharges that are controlled as necessary to meet ap plicable WQS. However, if the permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that the discharge does not meet WQS, corrective actions and EPA notification is required. In addition, at any time EPA may impose additional, more stringent WQBELs on a site-specific basis, or require an individual permit, if information suggests that the discharge is not controlled as necessary to meet applicable WQS. Th e MSGP WQBELs are applicable to discharges to water quality-impaired waters and for new or incr eased dischargers to Tier 2 waters (MSGP 2013).

Discharges to Water Quality Impaired Waters. Some waterbodies do not currently meet the nation’s WQS. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, a state must identify and list those waterbodies that do not meet or are not expected to meet water quality standards, or impaired waters. Section 303(d) requires states to develop a TMDL management plan for impaired waterbodies on the list. A TMDL is a mech anism for estimating the assimilative capacity of a waterbody and allocating that capacity between point and nonpoint pollution sources. The assimilative capacity is the loading of pollutant that a water body can receive without causing or contributing to a violation of water quality standards. The assimilative cap acity is based on the river flow rate and the state water quality standards, and backgr ound conditions. The TMDL alloca tions for point sources are waste load allocations and are implemented through limits incorporated in NPDES permits (MSGP FS 2013).

Requirements for Discharges to Wa ter Quality-Impaired Waters:

 For discharges to an impaired water with an EPA-approved or -established TMDL, EPA will inform the permittee if any additional limits or controls are necessary for the discharge to be

12 40 CFR 125.3(a)MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

38 consistent with the assumptions of any availa ble wasteload allocation in the TMDL, or if coverage under an individual permit is necessary.

 For discharges to impaired waters without an EPA approved or established TMDL, the permittee must comply with the relevant sections of the MS GP. This provision also applies to situations where EPA determines that the discharge is not controlled as necessary to meet WQS in a downstream water segment, even if the discharge is to receiving waters that is not specifically identified on a Section 303(d) list.

 For a new discharge to impaired waters, the pe rmittee must implement and maintain any control
measures or conditions on the site that enable d them to become eligible for the MSGP, and modify such measures or conditions as necessary pursuant to any corrective actions. The permittee is also required to comply with the monitoring requirements of the MSGP (MSGP FS 2013).

Tier 2 Antidegradation Requirements for New or Increased Dischargers Federal water quality standards require states to deve lop antidegradation policies to protect existing and designated uses of surface waters.

 Tier 1 maintains and protects existing uses and wa ter quality conditions necessary to support such uses. Where an existing use is established, it must be protected even if it is not listed in the water quality standards as a designated use. Tier 1 requirements are applicable to all surface

waters.

 Tier 2 maintains and protects “high quality” waters – waterbodies where existing conditions are better than necessary to support CWA “fishable/sw immable” uses. Water quality may be lowered in tier 2 waters, but only with public review of the social and economic tradeoffs. In no case may water quality be lowered to a level that would in terfere with existing or designated uses.

 Tier 3 maintains and protects water quality in outstanding national resource waters (ONRWs)

. Except for certain temporary changes, water quality cannot be lowered in such waters. ONRWs generally include the highest quality waters of the United States. However, the ONRW classification also offers special protection for wa ters of exceptional ecological significance, such as those that are important, unique, or sensitive ecologically. Decisions regarding which waterbodies qualify to be ONRWs are made by states and authorized tribes .

Requirements for New or Increased Dischargers to Tier 2 Waters:

 New dischargers, or an existing discharger with an increased discharge consistent with (i.e., a “planned changes” report) the MSGP, discharging di rectly to waters designated by a State or Tribe as Tier 2 or Tier 2.5 for antidegradati on purposes under 40 CFR 131.12(a), may be notified by the EPA that additional analyses, control measu res, or other permit conditions are necessary to comply with the applicable antidegradation require ments, or notified that an individual permit application is necessary in accordan ce with the MSGP (MSGP FS 2013).



### 2.3.3 Corrective Actions Permittees are required to review and revise the selec tion, design, installation, and implementation of their control measures in response to any of the following conditions:

 An unauthorized release or dischar ge occurs at the facility;

 A discharge violates a numeric effluent limit;MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

39  The permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that control measures are not stringent enough for the discharge to meet applicable water qualit y standards or the non-numeric effluent limits in the permit;

 A required control measure was never installed, was installed incorrectly, or not in accordance
with the MSGP.

 Visual assessments of the discharge indicate pollutants are being discharged;

 The average of four quarterly sampling results exc eeds an applicable benchmark. If less than four benchmark samples have been taken, but the r esults are such that an exceedance of the four quarter average is mathematically certain (i.e., if the sum of quarterly sample results to date is more than four times the benchmark level) this is considered a benchmark exceedance, triggering this review; or

 Construction or a change in design, operation, or maintenance at the facility that significantly changes the nature of pollutants discharged in stormwater from the facility, or significantly increases the quantity of pollutants discharged.

The corrective action must ensure that any of the above conditions are eliminated and will not be repeated in the future. Operators must immediately take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution and corrective action is installed and ma de operational, or if applicable, clean up any contaminated surfaces so that the material will not discharge in subsequent storm events. Within fourteen days of discovery, operators must install a new or modified control and make it operational, or complete the repair, unless infeasi ble (MSGP FS 2013). Any permit violations resulting from an inspection must comply with all correctives actions required by EPA.



### 2.3.4 Inspections and Monitoring Requirements

2.3.4.1 Inspections EPA’s MSGP requires two types of facility inspections:

1. Routine facility inspections and
2. Quarterly visual assessment of stormwater discharges (quarterly)

Routine facility inspections are required at least quarterly of all areas of the facility where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, and of all stormwater control measures used to comply with the effluent limits required by the MSGP. B ecause some equipment, processes, and procedures may require more frequent inspections, the relevant inspection schedules must be documented in the SWPPP. Routine facility inspections are an important tool for the permittee to be able to better identify sources of pollutants discharged in stormwater runoff from the facility and to actively observe the effectiveness of control measures (MSGP FS 2013).

Visual assessments provide a useful and inexpensive means for permittees to evaluate the effectiveness of their control measures. These assessments are grab sa mples of stormwater discharges examined visually for the presence of color, odor, clarity, floating solid s, settled solids, suspende d solids, foam, oil sheen, and other obvious indicators of stormwater pollution. No analytical tests are required to be performed on these samples. Permittees must document the results of their visual assessments in a report that includes the sample location, date and time, personnel coll ecting the sample and performing visual assessments, results of the observations, and probable sources of any observed stormwater c ontamination. Although the visual examination cannot assess the chemical prope rties of the stormwater discharged from the site,MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

40 the examination will provide meaningful results upon which the permittee may act quickly. Reports must be maintained onsite with the SWPPP (MSGP FS 2013).

2.3.4.2 Monitoring Section 308 of the CWA and federal regulation 40 CFR 122.44(i) require that monitoring be included in permits to determine compliance with effluent limita tions. Monitoring may also be required to gather

data to assess the need for future effluent limitations or to monitor effluent impacts on receiving water quality. Permittees are responsible for conducting the monitoring and reporting the results to EPA. The frequency of monitoring is dependent on the appli cability of these five types of monitoring to each permitted facility (MSGP 2013). The 2013 MSGP contains five general types of monitoring requirements:

1. Quarterly Benchmark monitoring;
2. Annual ELG monitoring ;
3. State- or Tribal- Specific monitoring ,
4. Impaired waters monitoring , and

5. Other monitoring required by EPA.

Benchmark Monitoring

. Stormwater samples are collected from a site’s discharge points (or outfalls) for laboratory analysis and the results are compared with benchmark pollutant concentrations as an indicator of the performance of stormwater control measures. A benchmark pollutant concentration is a level above which a stormwater discharge could adversely affect receiving water quality (and control measures must be evaluated) and, if below, the facility is not expected to have an impact on receiving water quality. This type of monitoring differs from “compliance m onitoring” in that exceedances of the indicator or

benchmark levels are not considered violations, but rather “red flags” that could point to a problem at the site with exposed pollutant sources or control measur es that are not working correctly. If the average of samples taken over four consecutive quarters exceed the applicable benchmark concentration of a particular pollutant, the permittee is required to i nvestigate whether the higher pollutant levels can be attributed to some pollutant source or faulty cont rol measure(s), and to address such problems through corrective action and possibly further monitoring (MSGP 2013).

Effluent Limitations Monitoring. When a facility is subject to one of the federal ELGs addressing limits on stormwater runoff, sampling is required to determ ine compliance with those limits. Typically, permits require corrective action and further sampling when an effluent limitation is exceeded. Monitoring is required once per year at each outfall. An exceedance of an applicable ELG constitutes a violation of the permit. When that occurs, corrective action incl udes resampling within 30 days, submission of an exceedance report if the resample al so exceeds the limit, and at least quarterly monitoring until discharge is in compliance with the ELG (MSGP FS 2013).

State or Tribal Provisions Monitoring. If a state or tribe has imposed a numeric effluent limitation, has established a wasteload allocation, or has stipulated specific monitoring requirement(s) as a condition for certification under CWA Section 401, monitoring is requi red at least annually, unless otherwise specified (MSGP 2013).

Discharges to Impaired Waters Monitoring

. General industrial permits may have special monitoring requirements for facilities that discharge pollutants of c oncern into impaired waters. Operators must first determine whether the facility’s discharge is to impa ired water, and, if so, identify the pollutants causingMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

41 the impairment, and include them in the NOI. Fo r those permittees discharging to impaired waters without an approved or established TMDL, monitori ng is required for the pollutant(s) of concern annually. If the permittee discharges to impaired water with an approved or established TMDL, monitoring is not required for the pollutant causing the impairment unless EPA informs the permittee that it is subject to such a requirement consistent with the goals of the applicable TMDL or waste load allocation. For discharges to impaired waters th at do not yet have TMDLs developed, these monitoring data are important when developing the TMDL in th e future to identify potential sources of the pollutants causing the impairment as well as to identify sources th at do not contribute the pollutant and thus should not be included in the TMDL (MSGP 2013).

Additional monitoring required by EPA. EPA may notify a permittee of additional discharge monitoring requirements. Any such notice will briefly state the reasons for the monitoring, locations, and parameters to be monitored, frequency and period of monitori ng, sample types, and reporting requirements (MSGP FS 2013).



### 2.4 Reporting and Recordkeeping
All monitoring data must be submitted to EPA no late r than 30 days after a permittee has received their complete laboratory results for all monitored outfa lls for the reporting period. The permit requires all permittees to submit an annual report to EPA that cont ains the results of the required comprehensive site inspection and a discussion of corrective actions require d and/or taken at any time since the previous comprehensive site inspection or, for the first comp rehensive inspection required under this permit, since permit authorization. The annual reports are used by EPA to identify potential water quality concerns and to assess compliance with permit provisions (MSGP 2013).



### 2.5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs)
In order to gain coverage under the 2015 MSGP a nd to comply with CWA regulations, operators must develop a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prior to submitting their NOI. The SWPPP identifies the techniques that the operator will use to reduce and manage activity-related wastes, and maintenance procedures that the operator will perfo rm to preserve the efficiency of the technique used. The SWPPP must clearly describe the control measures, timing and sequence of implementation, and which permittee (contractor) is responsible for im plementation of the control measures (MSGP 2013).

The SWPPP itself does not contain effluent limits; but is a tool to assist both the permittee and inspectors in ensuring and documenting that effluent limits are met. This documentation must be kept up-to-date. If permittees fail to develop and main tain an up-to-date SWPPP, they will have violated the permit. This recordkeeping violation is separate and distinct from a violation of any of the other substantive requirements in the permit (e.g., effluent limits, corre ctive action, inspections, monitoring, reporting, and sector- or state-specific requirements). To be covered under a MSGP, the initial SWPPP must be completed prior to submitting an NOI for permit cove rage. The SWPPP must be signed by a responsible party. SWPPPs must document the following (MSGP 2013):
1. The stormwater pollution prevention team;
2. A description of the site;
3. Summary of potential pollutant sources (activities in the area, spills and leaks, non-stormwater discharges, salt storage, sampling data, etc.);
4. Description of measures to meet effluent limits;

5. Monitoring and inspection procedures (including schedules) and results;
6. Corrective actions performed; andMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

42 7. Eligibility in accordance with federal laws (e.g., Endangere d Species Act [ESA], National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]).MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

43 

## 3.0 Affected Environment

3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources and baseline conditions that may be affected by the Proposed and No Action altern ative. To satisfy the requirements of 1502.2(b) of CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, this EA focu ses on resource values potentially subject to impact and critical elements of the human environment unless they are either not present in the affected environment, or present but not affected.

When considering the affected environment, it is necess ary to identify the scope of the action. Given the applicability of the MSGP, the scope is limited categ orically to cover only new sources of industrial discharge from the activities listed in Table 2-3 and ge ographically where EPA is the permitting authority,
as listed in Table 2-1. Since the MSGP covers a la rge geographic area and the nature of the permit does not allow for site-specific analysis, nationwide d escriptions of the affected environment have been provided for the resource categories. However, we are using the 2008 MSGP as the baseline for the scope
and level of activities for new sour ces of industrial activities covered.



### 3.2 Water Resources Water resources include groundwater, surface water, and floodplains. Evaluation of water resources examines the quantity and quality of the res ource and its demand for various purposes.

Surface Water

. Surface water resources consist of lakes, rivers, streams, estuaries, and the coastal waters. Surface water is important for its contributi ons to the economic, ecological, recreational, and human health of a community or locale.

Stormwater is an important component of surface wa ter systems because of its potential to introduce sediments and other contaminants that could degrade la kes, rivers, and streams. Stormwater flows, which may be exacerbated by high proportio ns of impervious surfaces associ ated with buildings, roads, and parking lots, are important to the management of su rface water. Stormwater systems convey precipitation away from developed sites to appropriate receiving su rface waters. Various systems and devices might be
used to slow the movement of water. For instan ce, a large, sudden flow could scour a streambed and harm biological resources. Stormwater control syst ems provide the benefit of reducing sediments and
other contaminants that would otherwise flow direc tly into surface waters. Failure to size stormwater control systems appropriately to hold or delay co nveyance of the largest predicted precipitation event often leads to downstream flooding and the envir onmental and economic damages associated with flooding. Higher densities of development, such as t hose found in urban areas, require greater degrees of stormwater management because of the higher propor tions of impervious surfaces that occur in urban centers. Stormwater runoff is generally considered a nonpoint source pollutant. However, it can be quantified as a point source when buildings or municipalities have stormwater systems that collect, convey, and discharge at an outfall into waters of the United States.

Groundwater

. Groundwater consists of subsurface hydrologic resources. It is an essential resource often used for potable water consumption, agricultural irri gation, and industrial applications. Groundwater typically can be described in terms of its depth fro m the surface, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, surrounding geologic composition, and r echarge rate. Hydrogeology extends the study of the subsurface to water-bearing structures. Hydrogeological inform ation helps in the assessment of groundwater quality and quantity and its movement.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

44 

### 3.2.1 Surface Water

3.2.1.1 Freshwater Streams and Rivers The United States has more than 250,0 00 rivers, comprising more than 3.5 million miles, covering an enormous and diverse landscape. Freshwater streams and rivers are the dynamic interconnected systems of moving water. Streams can be perennial (flow year-round), intermittent (flow during storm events or snowmelt), or interrupted (perennial flows that goes underground in karst terrain). Without human interferences, stream and river cour ses “meander” over time in response to natural occurrences that alter the landscape (e.g., landslides, tropical typhoons, ear thquakes). Humans frequently modify stream channels to develop land, protect existing infrastructur e, or supply potable water. Smaller streams join together to form larger streams, and the coming toge ther of streams eventually form rivers (American Rivers 2013). Ultimately, rivers flow into lakes or estuaries.

3.2.1.2 Freshwater Lakes and Reservoirs 

### Comprising 39.9 million acres, lakes and reservoirs ar e a major water resource in this country.
Freshwater inland lakes and rese rvoirs provide our nation with 70 percent of its drinking water and supply water for industry, irrigation, and hydropower. Lake ecosystems support complex and important food web interacti ons and provide habitat needed to support numerous threatened and endangered species. Lakes are also the cornerstone of our na tion’s 19 billion dollar freshwater fishing industry, form the backbone of numerous state tourism industries, and provide
countless recreationa l opportunities. Lakes are bodies of relatively still water, which can be formed from many processes, including glaciatio n, tectonic movements, volcanic activity, and
rivers. Reservoirs are rivers that have been dammed for huma n uses (e.g., water supply, power generation, recreation). The wate r in lakes can be supplied by streams and rivers, groundwater, or melting glaciers (NLA 2010).

3.2.1.3Estuaries Critical coastal habitats, such as estuaries, provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for finfish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. Estuar ies (including bays and tidal rivers) are bodies of water that provide transition zones between fresh river wate r and saline ocean water. This interaction produces an environment suited to unique wildlife and fisheries and contributes substantially to the U.S. economy. Estuaries are typically classified by their geomorphological features or by water circulation patterns and can be referred to by many different names, such as bays, harbors, lagoons, inlets, or sounds, although some of these water bodies do not strictly meet the above definition of an estuary and may be fully saline. The banks of many estuaries are amongst the most heavily populated areas of the world, with about 60 percent of the world’s population living along estuaries and the coast (EPA 2013).

3.2.1.4 Coastal Watersheds Ocean shorelines provide habitat for fish, shellfish, a nd other animals, and support recreational activities. The coastal watershed starts up at the beginning headwate rs of the streams and rivers that ultimately drain
down to the coastal areas. As the streams and rivers flow to coastal waters, they are influenced by many land and water uses. They pass through upland areas used for a variety of purposes such as farming, housing, businesses, recreation, and conservation. Upon reaching the coastal areas, the rivers empty into estuaries, which provide a unique habitat for a dive rse group of organisms. Among other habitat functions, rivers and estuaries provide breeding and feed ing grounds for a variety of aquatic and terrestrialMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

45 animals. Nearshore waters, the areas directly offshor e from the beach, are part of the coastal watershed because they are influenced by the activities going on along the shoreline and by pollutants coming from the land. Farther offshore are coral reefs (in tropical ar eas) and other offshore habitats that are part of the
coastal watershed as well (EPA 2013).



### 3.2.2 Groundwater Groundwater is the subsurface water that fully saturates pores or cracks in soils and rock. It replenishes streams, rivers, and habitats and provides fresh water for irrigation, industry, and potable water consumption. Groundwater is replenished by preci pitation and, depending on the local climate and geology, is unevenly distributed in both quantity and qua lity. When rain falls or snow melts, some of the water evaporates, some is transpired by plants, so me flows overland and collects in streams, and some infiltrates into the pores or cracks of the soil and rocks. The first water that enters the soil replaces water that has been evaporated or used by plants during a preceding dry period. Between the land surface and the aquifer water is a zone that hydrologists call th e unsaturated zone. In this unsaturated zone, there usually is at least a little water, mostly in smalle r openings of the soil and rock; the larger openings usually contain air instead of water. After a signifi cant rain, the zone may be almost saturated; after a long dry spell, it may be almost dry. Some water is held in the unsaturated zone by molecular attraction,
and it will not flow toward or enter a well (USGS 2005).

In terms of storage at any one instant in time, gr oundwater is the largest single supply of fresh water available for use by humans. An estimated one milli on cubic miles of the world’s groundwater is stored within one-half mile of the land surface. Only a fr action of this reservoir of groundwater, however, can be practicably tapped and made av ailable on a perennial basis through wells and springs. The amount of groundwater in storage is more than 30 times greater than the nearly 30,000 cubic-miles volume in all the
freshwater lakes and more than the 300 cubic miles of water in all the world’s streams at any given time (USGS 2005).

Aquifers An aquifer is the geologic layer that transmits groundwater. It may be a layer of gravel or sand, a layer of sandstone or cavernous limestone, a rubbly top or base of lava flows, or even a large body of massive rock, such as fractured granite, that has sizable openings . Aquifers can be unconfined (no layer to restrict the vertical movement of groundwater) or confined ( bounded by clays or nonporous bedrock). They can be further discussed in terms of origin, thickness, or hydraulic conductivity (the rate at which water can transmit though an aquifer). These characteristics are i nherently dependent on re gional and local geology (USGS 2005).

 Sand and gravel aquifers, which are typically un confined, are composed of unconsolidated and
semiconsolidated materials. Water is held betw een the particles of sand and gravel, so hydraulic conductivity is usually rapid. Sandstone and igneous and metamorphic (volcanic) rock are inherently nonporous and do not transmit water; however, fractures and faulting within these rocks can create highly productive aquifers. The most common kind of carbonate rock is limestone, which originates from a sedimentary deposit from a marine environment (USGS 2005).

 Carbonate aquifers are unique because limestone becomes dissolutioned in contact with water over time and creates open cavities. Solution cavities can be small tubular cracks to largeMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

46 interconnected caverns. Karst topography refers to the areas where carbonate rocks are exposed at the surface of the land; karst regions are hi ghly susceptible to groundwater contamination because water moves rapidly through the dissoluti oned rock. Other rocks can comprise a minor aquifer or confining bed (USGS 2005).

 Sole Source Aquifers are defined by the EPA as an aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying th e aquifer. These areas may have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically , legally and economically supply all those who depend on the aquifer for drinking water. There are 77 designated sole source aquifers in the United States and U.S. territories (EPA 2012c).

3.2.3 Drinking Water There are approximately 155,000 public water systems in the United States that affect approximately 314,569,000 people in some way or an other. Compared to third world countries, drinking water quality in the United States is good. In 2006, 89.3 percen t of the nation’s community water systems were in compliance with all of more than 90 (EPA) standards. Most of the systems out of compliance are small systems in rural areas and small towns, partly because most public water systems are small ones. EPA, other federal agencies, states, local communities, bus inesses and citizens all play a role in ensuring that drinking water is protected in the U.S. They establish Maximum C ontaminant Levels for some pollutants and naturally occurring constituents, determine va rious operational requirements, require public notification for violation of standards, provide guid ance to state primacy agencies, and require utilities to publish consumer confidence reports (EPA 2012d).

Many communities obtain their drinking water from aqui fers. Water suppliers drill wells through soil and rock into aquifers to reach the ground and supply the public with drinking water. Many homes also have their own private wells drilled on their property to ta p this supply. Unfortunately, the groundwater can become contaminated by human activity. These chem icals can enter the soil and rock, polluting the aquifer and eventually the well (EPA 2012d).



### 3.3 Biological Resources
Biological resources include native or naturalized plan ts and animals, and the habitats, such as wetlands, forests, and grasslands, in which they exist. Sens itive and protected biological resources include plant and animal species listed as threatened or endange red by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or a state. Determining which species occur in an area affected by a proposed action may be accomplishe d through literature review s and coordination with appropriate federal and state regulatory agency representatives, resource managers, and other knowledgeable experts.

Existing Conditions Stretching from the arctic of Alaska to the Florida Keys, and the coast of Maine to Hawaii’s volcanic islands, the United States supports an extraordinary di versity of life. Encompassing more than 2.5 million square miles of land and with 12,000 miles of coastline, the nation spans 120 degrees of longitude— nearly a third of the globe. The resulting range of climates has given rise to a wide array of ecosystems, from tundra and subarctic taiga to deserts, prairie, boreal forest, deciduous forests, temperate rain forests, and even tropical rain forests (NatureServe 2009). The United States is home to 21,715 species of native plants and animals. Nearly three thousand are anim als (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish),MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

47 and more than 18,000 are plant species (NatureServe 2009). Table 3-1 details the number of native plant and vertebrate animal species in the United States.

Table 3-1. Number of Native Plant and Vertebrate Animal Species in United States

Category Species Totals

Vertebrate Animals

Mammals 428

Birds 784

Reptiles 311

Amphibians 295

Fishes 1,154

Total Vertebrate Animals 2,972

Plants

Flowering plants (angiosperms) 16,499

Conifers (gymnosperms) 122

Ferns 658

Mosses 1,024

Liverworts 440

Total Plants 18,743

Total Species 21,715

Source: NatureServe 2009



### 3.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

The current USFWS list of threatened and endange red species includes 619 anim al species and 817 plant species in the U.S. and 2,054 plant and animal species both foreign and domestic (USFWS 2013). NMFS is responsible for the stewardship of the nation’s living marine resources, anadromous fish, and their habitat. Of these species, approximately 1,430 are fou nd in part or entirely in the U.S. or its waters. There are approximately 125 marine mammal speci es worldwide managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Of those 125, eight species are under the jurisdiction of the USFWS (walrus, polar bear, sea otter, marine otter, West African manatee, Am azonian manatee, West Indian manatee, and dugong) (NOAA 2012).

Candidate Species & Species of Concern. Candidate species are plants and animals for which the USFWS has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. As of February 1, 2013, there are 185 Species on the USFWSMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

48 Candidate Species list (USFWS 2013). NMFS maintain s a similar list, using the term “species of concern.” There are 37 species of concern as of November 14, 2013 (NMFS 2013).



### 3.4 Cultural Resources
Currently, there are over 90,000 properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (NPS 2013).MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

49 

## 4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.1 Introduction
This section presents an analysis of the potential direct and indirect impacts each alternative would have
on the affected environment as characterized in Secti on 3. Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts ar e caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Based on NOI responses during the 5 year coverage period of the 2008 MSGP, it would be antic ipated that approximately 176 permittees would be subject to NSPS and ELGs in the reissued permit (EPA 2014).



### 4.1.1 No Action If the No Action Alternative is impl emented, no new sources would be authorized to discharge under the 2008 MSGP and only currently covered facilities would be allowed to legally discharge under the permit. After that time, all new permittees at industrial fac ilities would be required to apply for coverage under individual NPDES permits. Based on data from 2008 through 2013, the No Action Alternative would result in the issuance of approximately 250 individu al permits (~50 new facilities/year) for stormwater discharge not previously covered under a NPDES permit (EPA 2014).

The proposed 2015 MSGP is EPA’s alternative to issui ng individual permits to new industrial stormwater dischargers requiring NPDES permit coverage. Un like individual permits which require facilities to submit detailed application forms on which the perm itting authority develops a facility-specific NPDES permit, the proposed 2015 MSGP is written to cove r a wide range of industrial activities and include requirements that apply more broadly to this univer se of dischargers; while minimizing impacts to water quality from industrial stormwater discharges. In ge neral, it would streamline obtaining permit coverage under the MSGP rather than under a site-specific individual permit.

The no action alternative would require EPA to commit greater personnel, time, and material resources to review individual applications; prepare and publish draft permits for public review and comment; and respond to comments before issuing final individual perm its. Therefore, using a general permit to cover numerous facilities reduces paperw ork for both permitting authoriti es and permittees, and ensures consistency of permit conditi ons for similar facilities.



### 4.2 Implementation of Control Meas ures and Effluent Limitations Stormwater control measures can be actions (incl uding processes, procedures, schedules of activities, prohibitions on practices and other management practices) , or structural or installed devices to minimize or prevent water pollution. There are many options that accomplish the objective of preventing pollutants from entering waters of the U.S., a nd of meeting applicable limits. Industrial facility operators must select, design, install and implement control measur es in accordance with good engineering practices and manufacturer’s specifications. They would also n eed to apply these control measures and BMPs when constructing, renovating, or repairi ng their facility for implementation of the Proposed Action. While the MSGP does not dictate that any specific control measure be installed on a site; operators must meet both technology-based limits and WQBELs to gain coverage under the MSGP which includes meeting
restrictions on erosion and sediment c ontrols and pollution prevention.

The permit provides operators the flexibility to de termine their site-specific controls, taking into
consideration what controls are most suited for th eir industry in terms of economic practicability and technology availability, and in some cases, consid erations such as available space and safety.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

50 Appendix A contains examples of best management practices applicable to each sector covered in the EA to minimize the discharge of certain pollutants and reduce potential environmental impacts. In addition, the following are resources contain examples of potential control measures:

 National Menu of Stormwater BMPs ( http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/index.cfm ); and

 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas ( http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban/ )

The impacts associated with the stormwater disch arge from industrial activities would be minimized through the mandatory control measures (BMPs, ELGs, and WQBELs) require d for coverage under the 2015 MSGP to meet the technology-based effluent limits and water-quality effluent limitations. Therefore, through implementation of control me asures by operators, ther e would be only minor environmental impacts to resources, as discussed throughout this chapter.



### 4.3 Water Resources Many waterbodies in the nation are currently listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the CWA for various pollutants, including nutrients (total phosp horus and nitrogen), sedimen t (TSS), and bacteria.
Reissuance of the 2015 MSGP will continue to ensure that industrial facilities operate in a manner that minimizes their discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. in accordance with ELGs, NSPS, WQS, and waste load allocations in approved TMDLs. In addition, the 2015 MSGP will ensure the most current wasteload allocations in recently approved or revised TMDLs are being implemented in the NPDES permitting program.

Implementation of structural control measures and BMPs could cause impact through ground disturbing activities. These ground-disturbing activities could expose bare soils and could lead to increased erosion and sedimentation of nearby surface water. However, these are often relatively small and localized in extent and generally would occur onl y at new sources. As discussed in Section 4.1 , there were approximately 60 new sources over th e 2008-2012 time period (EPA 2014).

Groundwater The 2015 MSGP does not pertain directly to discharges of stormwater into groundwater but could impact groundwater through the implementation of BMPs . Implementing BMPs such as stormwater detention/retention structures, the development of relatively impervious surfaces or the use of underground injection wells may cause the recharge to groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the facility to be altered or reduced. It could also allow more evaporation or evapotranspiration of
rainfall/snowmelt runoff instead of infiltration and rech arge to groundwater. Therefore, the construction and implementation of certain BMPs may have a minor temporary effect on groundwater.

BMPs could also require grading and trenching. These ground-disturbing activities could result in impacts on shallow groundwater quality through accident al fuel or lubricant spills from the equipment,
and increased infiltration of stormwater in areas wher e vegetation would be rem oved. Activities that could expose shallow groundwater to contaminants would be limited to where equipment would be operated or stored and the risk would be temporary.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

51 

### 4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.1 Vegetation and Wetlands The purpose of the MSGP is to control pollutants th at may be transported in stormwater runoff from industrial facilities. The potential for fewer polluta nts discharged into the environment should have a long-term beneficial impact on vegetation and wildlife.

Vegetation
Construction of BMPs would resu lt in short-term and long-term impacts on plant communities and species. Short-term adverse impacts would include di sturbance (removal, sedimentation, etc.) of species (damage to vegetation that could be overcome). Long-term adverse impacts would include permanent loss of native species or reduction in diversity of species through soil removal, soil erosion, soil compaction, burial, or displacement by noxious weeds or other invasive species. Long-term beneficial impacts would include control of noxious weeds, preservation of and use of native vegetation in landscaping, implementation of control measures to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff, and the reduction of pollutants in the discharged water.

Wetlands It is the goal and intent of EPA, consistent with EO 11990, to avoi d adverse impacts on wetlands and to proactively manage for wetlands dur ing the environmental planning process to mitigate potential impacts through avoidance. If it was determined that possible encroachment might occur and could not be avoided, correspondence with the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and applicable state agencies would be conducted to determine if jurisdicti onal wetlands would be impacted, and to establish appropriate mitigation to minimize adverse impacts. Beneficial impacts could occur if new wetlands
were created as BMPs.



### 4.4.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

Section 7 of the ESA governs interagency cooperati on and consultation. EPA has consulted with the USFWS and NMFS to address potential impacts associat ed with the Proposed Action and ensure that discharges covered under the permit are protective of listed species and their critical habitats. As
mentioned in Section 3.3.1 , operators must determine, prior to submitting the NOI for permit coverage, that their facility’s stormwater discharges, allo wable non-stormwater discharges, and stormwater discharge-related activities were either the subject of an ESA consultation or an ESA Section 10 permit, or are not likely to adversely affect any listed sp ecies or critical habitat under the ESA. To make this determination, operators must follow the steps in Appendix E.

EPA revised the criteria to better ensure that the cr iteria are adequately protective of listed species and their critical habitats. Since the permit eligibility criteria and the associated procedures in Appendix E have changed somewhat, all operators seeking covera ge under the 2015 MSGP must make their eligibility determination in accordance with the requirements in the new permit (i.e., operators cannot check the same criteria they selected in the 2008 MSGP without following the procedures in Appendix E). The new criteria and the changes to the criteri a are summarized as follows (MSGP 2013):MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

52 2015
MSGP
Criteria Language in 2015 MSGP – Appendix E Summary of Changes from
2008 MSGP – Appendix E
Criterion
A. No federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat(s) are likely to occur in the “action area” as defined in Appendix A. To certify your eligibility under this criterion, you must use the E.4 Criterion Selection worksheet. You must also provide a description of the basis for the criterion you selected on your NOI form and provide documentation supporting your eligibility dete rmination in your SWPPP. No substantial changes.

Criterion

B. The industrial activity’s discharges and discharge-related activities were already addressed in another operator’s valid certification of eligibility for your action area under this permit and there is no reason to believe that federally -listed species or federallydesignated critical habitat not considered in the prior certification may be present or located in the “action area” (e.g., due to a new species listing or critical habitat designation). To certify your eligibility under this criterion, there must be no lapse of NPDES permit coverage in the other opera tor’s certification. You must also comply with any terms and conditions imposed under the other operator's valid certification of eligibility to ensure that your discharges and discharge-related activities are protective of listed species and/or critical habitat. To certify your eligibility under this criterion, you must use the E.4 Criterion Selection worksheet. You must include in your NOI the NPDES ID from the other operator’s notification of authorization under this permit, and a description of the basis for the criterion selected on your NOI form, including the eligibility criterion selected by the other operator’s certification. You must also provide any documentation in your SWPPP that supports the other operator’s eligibility determination, as well as any te rms and conditions imposed under the eligibility requirements that applied under the prior
certification. Formally criterion
F in the 2008 MSGP) – In the 2015 MSGP, operators may only
choose Part 1.1.4.5
criterion B if another operator has already
established their eligibility under
Part 1.1.4.5 for the facility’s discharges and discharge-related
activities under the 2015 MSGP; this criterion may not
be selected based
on a determination
made under the
2008 MSGP
because of the changes to the eligibility process in the new permit.
This criterion can
be selected if there are multiple operators for a single facility where one operator has completed the
Part 1.1.4.5 eligibilityMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

53 2015
MSGP
Criteria Language in 2015 MSGP – Appendix E Summary of Changes from
2008 MSGP – Appendix E
determination for all discharges from the facility, or for
facilities that have changed operators during the 2015
MSGP term.
Criterion
C. Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat(s) are likely to occur in or near your facility’s “action area,” and your industrial activity’s discharges and discharge-related activities are not likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. To certify your eligibility under this criterion, you must use the E.4 Criterion Selection worksheet. At least 30 days prior to filing your NOI for permit coverage, you mu st submit to EPA and the Services your completed Criterion C worksheet. After evaluation of your worksheet, EPA may require additional controls that you must implement to avoid or eliminate adverse effects on listed species and critical habitat from discharges and discharge-related activities. You may submit your NOI for permit coverage 30 days after submitting your completed Criterion C worksheet. You must provide a description of the basis for the criterion you selected on your NOI form and provide documentation supporting your eligibility determination in your SWPPP. Formally criterion
E in the 2008 MSGP) – In the 2015 MSGP, operators may only
make a
determination that their discharges are not likely to adversely affect listed species and
their critical
habitats after following all the steps in Appendix E, which requires
the submission of a
worksheet to EPA a
minimum of 30 days prior to filing an NOI for permit coverage. The worksheet requires the operator to
evaluate their site’s discharges and discharge-related
activities and to determine, document, and implement any specific controls necessary to ensure no likely adverse effects. During the 30-day review period of theMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

54 2015
MSGP
Criteria Language in 2015 MSGP – Appendix E Summary of Changes from
2008 MSGP – Appendix E worksheet, EPA, in
coordination with the Services, may
determine that
additional measures are necessary in
order to be
consistent with a not likely to adversely affect determination, or
that an individual permit is necessary. While filling out and submitting a
worksheet is a new requirement, the
content of the
worksheet and steps it requires operators to complete were required in the
2008 MSGP. Additionally the
criterion C eligibility worksheet provides clarity and guidance for existing requirements.

Criterion

D. Consultation between a Federal Agency and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service
under section 7 of the ESA has been concluded. Consultations can be either formal or informal, and would have occurred only as a result of a separate federal action (e.g., during application for an individual wastewater discharge permit or the issuance of a wetlands dredge and fill permit) , and consultation must have addressed the effects of the industrial activity’s discharges and discharge-related activities on all fe derally-listed threatened or endangered species and all federa lly-designated critical habitat.
The result of this consultation must be either: Formally criterion
B in the 2008 MSGP) –
Permittees can obtain coverage
under Part 1.1.45
Criterion D if a separate section 7
consultation has been completed,
either formal orMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

55 2015
MSGP
Criteria Language in 2015 MSGP – Appendix E Summary of Changes from
2008 MSGP – Appendix E 1) A biological opinion that concludes that the action in question (taking into account the effects of your facility’s discharges and discharge-related activities) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, nor the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat;

or 2) Written concurrence from the applicable Service(s) with a finding that the facility’s discharges and discharge-related activities are not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species or federally-designated critical habitat. To certify your eligibility under this criterion, you must use the E.4 Criterion Selection worksheet. You must verify that the consultation remains valid, in accordance with 50 CFR §402.16. If
reinitiation of consultation is required, in order to be eligible under this Criterion you must conclude the reinitiated consultation and
the result of the consultation must be consistent with (i) or (ii)
above

. If eligible, you must also provide supporting documentation for your determination in your NOI and SWPPP, including the Biological Opinion (or PCTS tracking number) or concurrence
letter. informal. Section 7
consultations
would have
occurred if there was a separate federal action
associated with the facility. This
criterion is substantially
similar to the corresponding
criterion in the
2008 MSGP. However, in the 2015 MSGP, applicants certifying under
this criterion are required to ensure that a separate
section 7
consultation
remains valid.

Criterion E. Your industrial activities are authorized through the issuance of a permit under section 10 of the ESA, and this authorizationaddresses the effects of the facility’s discharges and dischargerelated activities on federally -listed species and federallydesignated critical habitat. To certify your eligibility under this criterion, you must use the E.4 Criterion Selection worksheet. You must also provide supporting documentation for your determination in your NOI and SWPPP, including a copy of the permit from the Services. Formerly criterion
C in the 2008 MSGP) – No significant changes.

In the 2015 MSGP, EPA has removed the eligibility criterion D from the 2008 MSGP that required coordination between the operator and the Service o ffice and a written statement of a not likely to adversely affect determination. These changes were developed in consultation with the Services, and are necessary to ensure that the listed species eligibility criteria are adequate ly protective, and to ensure the operators are making accurate eligibility determinations.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

56 Potential adverse effects could include the temporar y or permanent alteration of site conditions when implementing BMPs. During the construction or impl ementation of BMPs, it is possible to have an adverse effect on threatened and endangered species. If rare plants or threatened or endangered species are present, the effect could be more significant. However, based on the 2015 MSGP’s provisions, the adequately protective eligibility criteria for listed sp ecies and critical habitat built into MSGP, and their reduction of impacts to water quality from stormwater discharges from industrial activities, the Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse effect on threatened and endangered species or critical habitat present in the coverage area of the 2015 MSGP.



### 4.5 Cultural Resources
Coverage under the 2015 MSGP is available only if oper ators certify that they meet one of the eligibility criteria related to compliance with historic prope rties protection pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). These criteria, listed below, are used to identify whether land disturbances
associated with the installation or revision of su bsurface stormwater control measures would affect properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the Nationa l Register of Historic Properties; and, if so, to determine the measures that will prevent or mitigate adverse effects to the properties.

Criterion A. Your stormwater discharges and allowabl e non-stormwater discharges do not have the potential to have an effect on historic prope rties and you are not constructing or installing new stormwater control measures on your site that cause subsurface disturbance; or

Criterion B. Your discharge-related activities (i.e., constr uction and/or installation of stormwater control measures that involve subsurface disturbance) will not affect historic properties;

or

Criterion C. Your stormwater discharges, allowable non- stormwater discharges, and discharge-related activities have the potential to have an eff ect on historic properties, and you have obtained and are in compliance with a written agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), or other tribal representative regarding measures to mitigate or prevent any adverse effects on historic properties, and you have either (1) obtai ned and are in compliance with a written agreement that outlines all such measures, or (2) been unable to reach agreement on such

measures; or

Criterion D. You have contacted the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, or other tribal representative and EPA in writing informing them that you have the potential to have an effect on historic properties and you did not receive a response from the SHPO, THPO, or tribal representative within 30 days of receiving your letter.

Under the NPHA regulations, a determination that a fede ral undertaking has no potential to effect historic properties fulfills an agency’s obligations under section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.3(a)(1)). EPA has reason to believe that the vast majority of activities authorized under the 2015 MSGP will have no potential to have effects on historic properties. The purpose of the MSGP is to control pollutants that may be transported in stormwater runo ff from industrial facilities. EPA does not anticipate effects on historic properties from the pollutants in the stormwater and allowable non-stormwat er discharges from theseMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

57 industrial facilities. Thus, to the extent EPA’s issu ance of this general permit authorizes discharges of such constituents, confined to existing stormwater channels or natural drainage areas; the permitting action does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties.

However, existing and new operators could undertake activities in connection with the 2015 MSGP that might affect historic properties if they install or new or modify control measures that involve subsurface disturbance. The overwhelming majority of sources covered under the 2015 MSGP will be operators that are seeking renewal of previous permit coverage. If these existing dischargers are not planning to construct new stormwater controls or conveyance sy stems, they have already addressed NHPA issues in the previous MSGP. Where operators install or modify control measures that involve subsurface disturbance, the area of potential effect (APE) for th e activities performed to comply with the permit, for historic preservation purposes, is limited to the loca tion and depth of the earth disturbance associated with

the installation or modification of the stormwater control measures. Since both new and existing dischargers could undertake such activities, all operato rs are required to follow the historic property screening procedures in Appendix F to document eligibility.



### 4.6 Cumulative Impacts
The analysis of the potential impacts discussed a bove for the various resources for the proposed reissuance of the MSGP addresses cumulative impacts for several reasons. A new source NPDES general permit explicitly addresses cumulative impacts by evaluati ng impacts, costs, and benefits at the Agency’s best estimate of projected activity that will occur unde r the proposed general permit. Thus, the discussions presented above fully anticipate and specifically addre ss the level of activity and associated impacts that EPA expects under the 2015 MSGP.

In developing the 2015 MSGP, EPA has addressed 29 sectors industry activity, i.e., from the level of individual sites to aggregated industry activity at the national level. Also, the 2015 MSGP contains effluent limits that correspond to required levels of technology-based control (BPT, BCT, BAT) for various discharges under the CWA. Where an effluent limitation guideline (ELG) or New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) applies to sector-speci fic discharges authorized by this permit, the requirement must be incorporated into the permit as an effluent limitation. These control measures and effluent limitations address various pollutants and mi nimize their potential to have impacts on streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries from individual waterbodies to a national level. EPA also has addressed other impacts most affected by stormwater discharges form industrial sites such as impacts to threatened and endangered species and historic properties through sp ecific processes and requirements in the general permit. Furthermore, EPA has addressed individual si te-specific concerns by incorporating specific features into the permitting process, such as additional requirements for discharges to impaired and Tier II
and III waterbodies.

Also, when a NOI is received, designated EPA regional contacts are notified of the application so they can review the individual industrial activity if needed . By incorporating such protections into the general permitting and NOI process, EPA has ensured that si gnificant cumulative effects will not occur due to specific, appropriate, conditions and requirements th at anticipate the consequences of multiple industrial activities as each individual application is received and reviewed.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

58 

## 5.0 Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Plans, Policies and Regulations

The scope of EPA’s environmental review includes th e requirements of Federal statutes and policies other than the NPDES permit program. EPA has reviewed th e proposed MSGP with respect to a number of these other Federal statutes and policies. EPA has id entified those statutes and policies that the proposed CGP may potentially affect, and EPA addresses the consistency of the proposed CGP with these statutes and policies in this section as described below.



### 5.1 Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications by State Water Quality

Agencies
Section 401 of the CWA (See also 40 CFR §122.44(d)(3) and §124.53(a)) provides that no Federal license or permit, including NPDES permits, to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters shall be granted until the State/Trib e in which the discharge originates certifies that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA. The 2015 MSGP provides state, U.S. territory a nd tribal requirements that these entities certify are necessary in order for the permit to include limits to achieve their water qua lity centers water quality

standards.

In addition, where a state or tribe has imposed a num eric effluent limitation, has established a wasteload allocation, or has stipulated specific monitoring requirement(s) as a condition for certification under CWA Section 401, a minimum monitoring frequency of once-per-year has been included in the permit. This annual monitoring frequency applies only if a state or tribe does not specify an alternative monitoring frequency.



### 5.2 Endangered Species Act of 1973
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires all Fe deral Agencies to ensure, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the “Services”), that any Federal action carried out by th e Agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species that is federally-listed as e ndangered or threatened (“listed”), or result in the

adverse modification or destruction of habitat of such species determined to be critical (“critical habitat”). See 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), 50 CFR 402 and 40 CFR 122.49(c).

Criteria were developed in the 2015 MSGP in consultation with the Se rvices to ensure that discharges covered under the permit are protective of listed species and their critical habitats. The criteria require the operator to determine, prior to submitting the NOI fo r permit coverage, that their facility’s stormwater discharges, allowable non-st ormwater discharges, and stormwater discharge-related activities were either the subject of an ESA consultation or an ESA Section 10 permit, or are not likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat under the ESA. To make this determination, operators must follow the steps in Appendix E. EPA revised the criteria to better ensure that the criteria are adequately protective of listed species and their critical habitats.



### 5.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Coverage under the 2015 MSGP is available only if oper ators certify that they meet one of the eligibility criteria related to compliance with historic prope rties protection pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). These criteria are used to id entify whether land disturbances associated withMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

59 the installation or revision of subsurface stormwater control measures would affect properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Histor ic Properties; and, if so, to determine the measures that will prevent or mitigate adverse effects to the properties.



### 5.4 Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address E nvironmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations directs Federal agen cies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse health or enviro nmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income popul ations. Environmental justice refers to the

― fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people re gardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of envir onmental laws, regulations, and policies.

EPA has incorporated requirements into the 201 5 MSGP that will decrease impacts from various pollutants from stormwater discharges from 29 industria l sectors to surface waters. No high and adverse health or environmental effects, to either the ge neral population, or minority and low-income populations, are expected from issuance of the MSGP.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

60 

## 6.0 References

40 CFR 411 40 CFR 411, Cement Manufacturing Point Source Category 40 CFR 418 40 CFR 418, Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category 40 CFR 423 40 CFR 423, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category 40 CFR 429 40 CFR 429, Timber Products Processing Point Source Category 40 CFR 443 40 CFR 443, ELG Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalts) 40 CFR 445 40 CFR 445, Landfills Point Source Category 40 CFR 449 40 CFR 449 Airport Deicing Point Source Category, May 16, 2012
American
Rivers 2013 American Rivers. 2013. River Anatomy . Available at http://www.americanrivers.org/rivers/about/ . Accessed February 2013. EPA 1982 EPA 1982. Development Document for Fi nal Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category. EPA Office of Water and Wastewater Management. November 1982.

EPA 2010 EPA 2010. USEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual . Washington, DC. (September).
EPA-833-K-10-001. Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/write rmanual.cfm?program_id=45 EPA 2012a EPA 2012. EPA Technical Development Do cument for the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Sta ndards for the Airport Deicing Category, April 2012
EPA 2012b EPA 2012b. EPA’s National Coastal C ondition Report IV. September 2012. Available

at: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmon itor/nccr/upload/0_NCCR_4_Report_508_boo kmarks.pdf EPA 2012c EPA 2012c. Sole Source Aquifer Prot ection Program. Updated March 6, 2012.
Available at: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/sourcewater/protection/solesourceaqui
fer.cfm EPA 2012d EPA 2012d. Public Drinking Water Syst ems: Facts and Figures. Updated April 2,
2012. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/factoids.cfm
EPA 2013 USEPA 2013. Coastal Watershed Factsh eets-Oceans and Coastal Protection: Your
Coastal Watershed. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/fact1.cfm . Accessed January 2013
EPA 2014. EPA 2014. Information provided from the 2008 MSGP electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) database. Accessed: September 2014.

MSGP
2008. EPA MSGP 2008. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater discharges associated with Industrial activity (MSGP) . As modified effective May 27, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2008_finalpermit.pdf

. Accessed November 2012.

MSGP 2013 (proposed) EPA Proposed MSGP 2013. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatio n System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater discharges associ ated with Industrial activity (MSGP) . As published on September 27, 2013. Available at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stor mwater/upload/msgp2013_proposedpermit1- 7.pdf

MSGP FS
2013. MSGP Fact Sheet 2013 . Proposed 2013 Multi-Sector General Permit– Fact Sheet

. Available atMSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

61 http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/upload/msgp2013_proposedfs.pdf Accessed September 2014.

NatureServe
2009 NatureServe. 2009. Available at NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1. Accessed January 2013. NLA 2009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. National Lakes Assessment : A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Lakes. EPA 841-R-09-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. NMFS 2013 National Marine Fisheries Service 2013. Species of Concern List. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern/#list . Updated November 14, 2013.

NOAA
2012 NOAA Fisheries Service, Protected Species, Species Information: Office of Protected Resources, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ , Accessed November 15, 2012
NPS 2013 National Park Service 2013. National Re gister of Historic Places. Available at http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/

USFWS
2013 USFWS 2013. Candidate Species Report. U pdated February 1, 2013. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/candidateSpecies.jsp USGS 2005 U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Groundwater use in the United States. http://ga.water.usgs.gov /edu/wugw .html Accessed December 2012.MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

62 

## Appendix A

S ECTOR 

## -S PECIFIC 

## C ONTROL 

## M EASURES

Examples of best management practices (BMPs) a pplicable to each sector covered in the EBCR are provided on the following pages. The BMPs have b een taken from the below-referenced fact sheets.

Fact Sheet References

1. Fact Sheet, Sector A: Timber Products Facilities/EPA-833-F-06-016, December 2006

2. Fact Sheet, Sector C: Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing and Refining/EPA833-F-06-018, December 2006

3. Fact Sheet, Sector D: Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials Manufacturers and Lubricant Manufacturers / EPA-833-F-06-019, December 2006

4. Fact Sheet, Sector E: Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing Facilities/EPA-833-F-06-020, December 2006

5. Fact Sheet, Sector K: Hazardous Waste Treat ment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities/EPA833-F-06-026, December 2006

6. Fact Sheet, Sector L: Landfills and Land Application Sites Fact Sheet/ EPA-833-F-06- 027, December 2006

7. Fact Sheet, Sector O: Steam Electric Power Generating Facilities, Including Coal Handling Areas/EPA-833-F-06-030, December 2006

8. Fact Sheet, Sector S: Vehicle Maintenance Areas, Equipment Cleaning Areas, or Deicing Areas Located at Air Transportation Facilities/EPA-833-F-06-034, December
2006EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-1 

### Sector A – Timber Products Facilities ( table extracted from Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, Sector A, EPA-833-F-06-016)EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-2EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-3EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-4EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-5 

### Sector C

–

Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing and Refining (table extracted from Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, Sector C, EPA-833-F-06-01 8 )EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-6EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-7EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-8EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B-9 

### Sector D – Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials Manufacturers and Lubricant Manufacturers ( table extracted from Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, Sector D, EPA-833-F-06-01 9 )EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 10EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 11EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 12 

### Sector E – Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing Facilities ( table extracted from Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, Sector E, EPA-833-F-06-020 )EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 13EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 14EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 15 

### Sector K – Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities (table extracted from Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, Sector K, EPA-833-F-06-0 26 )EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 16EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 17EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 18EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 19 

### Sector L – Landfills and Land Application Sites ( table extracted from Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, Sector L, EPA-833-F-06-0 27)EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 20EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 21EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 22EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 23 

### Sector O – Steam Electric Power Generating Facilities, including Coal Handling Areas ( table extracted from Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, Sector O, EPA-833-F-06-0 30 )EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 24EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 25EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 26EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 27 

### Sector S – Vehicle Maintenance Areas, Equipment Cleaning Areas, or Deicing Areas Located at Air Transportation Facilities (table extracted from Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, Sector S, EPA-833-F-06-0 34)EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 28EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 29EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 30EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities

B- 31