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 2015 

 
MSGP 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 Classification 
MSGP 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 Standards 

 
MSGP 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............................................................................................................................ 49
MSGP 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 Certifications 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.................................................................................................................................................62

 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

6

Tables 

Table 1-1. Stormwater-Specific Effluent Limitations 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 Permittees 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...............................47
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

7

1. Introduction 

1.1 Background 

Stormwater runoff is a widespread problem affecting surface water quantity and quality. Stormwater can 

pick up debris, chemicals, fertilizers, dirt, and other pollutants and flow into a storm sewer system or 

directly to a lake, stream, pond, river, wetland, or coastal water. In most instances, flows that enter a 

storm sewer system are discharged untreated into nearby water bodies that are often used for swimming, 

fishing and providing drinking water. In rural areas, 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 drinking 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 Water 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 waters1

. Under the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) regulates discharges through various pollution 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 discharges. 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 concept of a permitting exemption for industrial facilities 

with little or no likelihood of discharging contaminated stormwater; however, this exemption was not 

well-defined or required to be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority2

. 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 facility wishes to be excluded from the NPDES program3

. 

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] 68722
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

8

Technology-based effluent limitations include best practicable control technology currently achievable 

(BPT) for conventional pollutants, and best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for 

toxic and non-conventional pollutants4

. In addition to BPT and BAT requirements for industrial 

categories, the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments established new source 

performance standards (NSPS) or best available demonstrated control technology including where 

practicable a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants5

. 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 treatment technologies during construction. 

To complement its work on technology-based limitations, 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 state 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 pollutants beyond technology-based levels (EPA 2010). 

Facilities can meet these limitations, referred to as effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs), by implementing 

control measures such as best management practices (BMPs) that control stormwater associated with 

industrial activity. EPA has issued effluent guidelines for 57 industrial categories. Of the 57 effluent 

limitation guidelines, eight are applicable to stormwater 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, provide permit requirements for any discharger that files 

a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered, and reduce the administrative workload for NPDES permitting 

authorities. 

EPA issued the first Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) 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) (construction 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 MSGP 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 discharges associated with industrial activities 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 NEPA6

. 

“New sources” are defined as any facility—building, structure, facility or installation—that discharges 

pollutants or could discharge pollutants where construction commenced after promulgation of the 

applicable ELGs or after proposal of the applicable effluent guidelines, but only if the effluent guidelines 

are promulgated within 120 days7

. Table 1-1 includes industries covered by the MSGP that have 

applicable federal ELGs and NSPSs that permittees are responsible for complying with: 

Table 1-1. Stormwater-Specific Effluent Limitations 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 waste 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 122.2
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

10

Table 1-1. Stormwater-Specific Effluent Limitations Guidelines with New Source Performance 

Standards 

Regulated Discharge 

40 CFR Section MSGP 

Sector 

New Source Date 

Runoff from coal storage 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 potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the No 

Action Alternative considered by EPA in the issuance 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 FONSI will be prepared. If significant environmental 

issues are identified that cannot be mitigated below significant, 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 Environmental 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 enables the decision-maker to have a comprehensive 

view of major environmental issues and requirements associated with the Proposed Action. According to 

CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA should be integrated “to the fullest extent possible with other 

planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency so that all such procedures 

run concurrently rather than consecutively”9

. 

This EA will examine potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on physical, 

biological, and socioeconomic resources. These resources 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 discussed 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). The Proposed Action is necessary because the current 

MSGP and authorization to discharge expired September 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 necessary 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. Section 2.0 includes a detailed description of the 

proposed MSGP and alternatives considered under NEPA. 

EPA is proposing to issue an updated MSGP to provide 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 available for coverage, which includes 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 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., eligibility of discharges, effluent limitations, stormwater 

pollution prevention plan requirements, monitoring and reporting requirements), industrial sector-specific 

conditions, and specific requirements applicable to facilities 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 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 waterbodies 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 modified requirements, and thus differs from the 2008 

MSGP in various ways. The following list summarizes 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 additional water quality-based control 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 include location information for each stormwater outfall 

they discharge from, identify if the facility discharges to saltwater and the hardness of the receiving 

waterbody (if subject to benchmark monitoring for metals), 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 outfall latitude and longitude information for each 

outfall to automatically determine the receiving waters that the site discharges to and the receiving 

waters’ impairment status. 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

12

1.4.1.2 Electronic Reporting Requirements 

Electronic reporting is required in the 2015 MSGP. Electronic 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 impossible, 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 covers the remaining term of the permit for other 

required information submittals. All 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 operators must follow to establish their eligibility with 

regard to protection of threatened and endangered species and critical habitat as a result of EPA’s 

consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 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 operators are making accurate eligibility 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 clarifications include requirements 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 taken 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 National 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 each industrial activity exposed to stormwater that 

could be discharged in stormwater, and any authorized non-stormwater discharges listed; control 

measures employed to comply with the non-numeric technology-based effluent limits, and any other 
MSGP 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 addition of these benchmarks was necessary to provide an 

appropriate indicator of the performance of the measures undertaken to meet the effluent limitations 

contained in the permit where stormwater is discharged into saline waters. Benchmark values in the 2008 

MSGP for these metals were based on acute or chronic 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-specific 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 situations 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. Before 2008 those activities were required to be 

covered separately under the Construction General Permit (CGP). To facilitate such coverage, 

additional requirements have been added that are consistent with EPA’s recently issued 

Construction General Permit and the 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 issued 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

2.0Description 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 were covered under the 2008 MSGP as of September 2014 (EPA 2014). 

As part of the NEPA process, the No Action alternative 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 underlying purpose and need for the proposed action. 

Alternatives deemed infeasible were not analyzed further. 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 remains 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 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) (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 Massachusetts, 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 Utah 
MSGP 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 Colorado, 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 covered 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 Oregon 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 under 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 the Lake Traverse Reservation which is 

covered under South Dakota permit 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 covered 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 located in North Dakota (except for the 

Standing Rock Reservation which is covered under North Dakota permit NDR05000I 

listed above) 

TXR05000I Indian Country within the State of Texas 

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

lands 

WAR05000I Indian Country lands within the State of Washington 
MSGP 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 those 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 Can Be Covered Under this Permit 

The 2015 MSGP is available for stormwater discharges 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 for coverage. The sector descriptions are based on 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and Industrial Activity Codes consistent with the definition 

of stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity 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, Apparel, 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 source 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 have applicable federal ELGs 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-applicable sources that were New Sources under the 

1974 regulations are subject to the 1974 NSPS. 

Approximately 176 permittees covered under the 2008 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 MSGP1

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 53 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

19

Regulated Discharge 

MSGP 

Sector/ 

Subsector 

Total Permittees 

from 2008 MSGP1

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 facilities that are on Indian land or a federal facility. 

Over 90% of permittees covered 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 seek coverage under the reissued MSGP and therefore 

the eNOI data for the 2008 permit is used as a baseline 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 against which the effects of a Proposed Action and all 

other alternatives are compared. The No Action Alternative 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 facilities 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 individual 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 provide permit coverage for stormwater discharges from 

industrial facilities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority and has made the MSGP available for 

coverage. The 2015 MSGP authorizes operators of facilities eligible for permit coverage to discharge 

stormwater from industrial activities to waters of the United States in accordance with the requirements in 

the permit, including effluent limitations, inspection and monitoring requirements, and other conditions 

set forth in the permit. 

The 2015 MSGP is similar to the 2008 MSGP, and is structured 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 requirements), industrial sector-specific conditions, and 

specific requirements applicable to facilities 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 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 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 coverage 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 covered by an individual permit. 

As with previous permits, to be eligible for coverage under the 2015 MSGP, operators of industrial 

facilities must meet the eligibility provisions of the 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 activity 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 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 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 effluent 
MSGP 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 

writer10. 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 wastewater discharges from a particular industrial or commercial facility 

where the effluent is more predictable and can be more effectively analyzed to develop numeric effluent 

limitations. Therefore, EPA includes non-numeric effluent limits in NPDES permits11, such as the 

MSGP, such as requirements mandating facilities to “minimize” 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 2015 MSGP, taken as a whole, constitute BPT for all 

pollutants, BCT for conventional pollutants, and BAT 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 compliance, which lead to widely varying 

levels of stormwater program effectiveness. EPA continues to assert that the combination of pollution 

prevention and structural management practices required by these limits are the best technologically 

available and economically practicable and achievable controls, as well as the most environmentally 

sound way to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff from industrial facilities. 

Industrial facility operators are required to select, design, install and implement 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 technology-based effluent limits in the permit. The permit 

provides operators the flexibility to determine their site-specific controls, taking into consideration what 

controls are most suited for their industry in terms of economic practicability and technology availability, 

and in some cases, considerations such as available space and safety. Depending on the sector, there are 

both non-numeric technology-based effluent limits and numeric effluent limitations based on the effluent 

limitations guidelines. 

The specific limits in the MSGP emphasize “low-tech” 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 otherwise 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 more 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 control 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 streams (although care must be taken to avoid 

groundwater contamination); 

 Attenuating flow using open vegetated swales and natural depressions can reduce in-stream 

impacts of erosive flows; 

 Conserving and/or restoring riparian buffers will help protect streams from stormwater runoff 

and improve water quality; and 

 Using treatment interceptors (e.g., swirl separators, oil-water separators, sand filters) may be 

appropriate in some instances to minimize the discharge of pollutants.

2.3.2.1 Non-numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits 

The 2015 MSGP requires permittees to comply with 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 limits 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 effluent 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 discharges by either locating industrial materials and 

activities inside or protecting them with storm-resistant 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 with temporary structures (e.g., tarps) when wet 

weather is expected or moving materials or activities to existing or new permanent structures (e.g., 

buildings, silos, sheds). Even a simple practice such as keeping a dumpster lid closed can be very 

effective. In minimizing exposure, permittees must also: 

 Use grading, berming, or curbing to prevent runoff 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 methods (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 operations indoors, under cover, or in bermed 

areas that prevent runoff and run-on and also that capture any overspray; and 

 Drain fluids from equipment and vehicles that will 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 stormwater from industrial sites simply involves common sense 

improvements to a facility’s basic housekeeping methods. A clean and orderly work area can reduce the 

possibility of accidental spills caused by mishandling 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 implement to meet the good housekeeping effluent limit, 

including improved operation and maintenance of industrial machinery and processes, improved materials 

storage practices, better materials inventory controls, more frequent and regular clean-up schedules, 

maintaining well organized work areas, and education 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 alternatively, 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 when 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 intercepting them before they are discharged. 

The MSGP also includes a new plastic materials requirement 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 stormwater control measures so they remain effective. 

Permittees must comply with the following maintenance requirements: 

 Performing inspections and preventive maintenance of stormwater drainage, source controls, 

treatment systems, and plant equipment and systems that could fail and result in contamination of 

stormwater; 

 Diligently maintaining nonstructural control measures (e.g., keep spill response supplies 

available, personnel appropriately trained); 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

24

 Inspecting and maintaining baghouses at least quarterly 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 need to be repaired or replaced, permittees must 

immediately take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until the final 

repair or replacement can be implemented, including cleaning up any contaminated surfaces so that the 

material will not be discharged during subsequent storm events. Final repairs/replacement of stormwater 

controls should be completed as soon as 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 significant sources of pollutants. EPA encourages permittees 

to inspect and maintain baghouses more frequently than 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 exposure 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 spill/release occurs, to limit environmental damage. EPA 

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

disposed. This information would be valuable for complying with the requirement to specify the material 

handling procedures, storage requirements, containment or diversion equipment, and spill cleanup 

procedures that will minimize the potential for spills/releases and, in the event of a spill/release, ensure a 

proper and timely response. To comply with this effluent limit, permittees must: 

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

could be susceptible to spillage or leakage to encourage proper handling and facilitate rapid 

response if spills or leaks occur; 

 Implement procedures for material storage and handling, including the use of secondary 

containment and barriers between material storage and traffic areas, or a similarly effective means 

designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from these areas; 

 Develop training on the procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up leaks, 

spills, and other releases. When needed, execute such procedures as soon as possible; 

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

made; and 

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

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 either 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 discharge. 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 locations 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 following to both minimize the potential for stormwater contamination 

and to minimize the potential for direct discharges 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 any 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 devices (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 kept in effective operating 

condition in order to minimize pollutant discharges. Therefore, regular maintenance and self-inspections 

must be conducted for all storage tanks and secondary containment areas. Permittees must look for 

leaks/spills, cracks, corrosion, etc., to identify deficiencies and/or problem components such as fittings, 

pipe connections and valves. For any deficiencies identified, permittees must conduct the necessary 

maintenance, or if applicable, take corrective action. 

Erosion and Sediment Controls

This requires operators to minimize pollutant discharges from erosion by stabilizing exposed soils at the 

facility in order to minimize pollutant discharges and placing flow velocity dissipation devices at 

discharge locations. Velocity dissipation should control 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 operators 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 areas 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 practices 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, collection 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 comprised 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 include covering the piles or eliminating the discharge 

from such areas of the facility. Preventing exposure of piles to stormwater or run-on also eliminates the 

economic loss from materials being dissolved and washed 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 work 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 prevention measures). For those personnel 

needing training, the following areas must be covered, 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 applicable 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 responsibilities of each employee. More frequent training may 

be appropriate at facilities with high employee turnover 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 aspects of stormwater pollution 

prevention, as appropriate. 

Non-Stormwater Discharges 

This specifies that the presence of non-stormwater discharges must be evaluated, and any non-stormwater 

discharges not explicitly authorized in the MSGP or covered by another NPDES permit must be 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

27

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

Additionally, the permit requires that all wash water, 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 accordance 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 generation 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 measures 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 practice 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-water 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 should keep stored materials or materials that could 

be spilled away from all roads within the site. Specific 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 below stormwater discharges (and in Table 2-3). 

These effluent limits are included as applicable in the sector-specific requirements of the MSGP, and are 

summarized below. Part 8 of the MSGP is where applicable ELGs, NSPS, and monitoring requirements 

specific to each sector are identified. 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

28

40 CFR Part 429, Subpart I: Timber Processing, Discharges 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-contained bodies of water (mill ponds or log ponds) or 

the storage of logs or roundwood on land during which water is sprayed or deposited intentionally on the 

logs (wet decking). The ELGs for discharges from spraydown 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 wastestreams 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 Manufacturing 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 sulfuric 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 Manufacture 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 discharges resulting from the manufacture of sulfuric acid 

by sulfur burning, wet-process phosphoric acid, normal superphosphate, triple 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 construction 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 shall 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 with 

any 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 applicable 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 2013 
MSGP 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 that occur at industrial facilities are often exposed to 

stormwater. The runoff from these areas may discharge pollutants directly into nearby waterbodies or 

indirectly via storm sewer systems, thereby degrading 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 determined based on discharges from these industrial 

activities independent of commingling with any other 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 2013 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

32

40 CFR Part 411, Subpart C. Cement Manufacturing, 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 facilities. 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 commercial 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 Hazardous 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) 

BOD5 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 0.073
MSGP 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 industrial 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 limitations 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) 

BOD5 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 B
MSGP 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 employing the steam water system as the thermodynamic 

medium. In order to ensure a consistent supply of coal for steam generation, plants typically maintain an 

outdoor reserve (25-40 days worth). Some coal-fired 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 runoff. 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 coal pile runoff depends upon the coal characteristics 

and the residence time of water within the coal pile. 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 intermittent depending on rainfall, and the transfers from 

the coal pile runoff pond are based on the level in the 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/L2

 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 apply any co-located industrial 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 Associated 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-propeller-driven aircraft departures (1,000 or more annually) since nonpropeller-driven aircraft are more likely than other types 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 fluids 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. Airports with larger numbers of non-propeller-driven 

aircraft and other aircraft departures will use larger quantities of deicing products (EPA 2012a). 

The rule does not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports. Such 

requirements will continue to be established in general 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 pounds per year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule at $3.5 million 

(EPA 2012a). 

Airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environment vary widely among individual airports based on 

airport climate, product performance, cost, availability, 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 wastewaters and either treat them on-site or send them offsite to a POTW or other facility for treatment and discharge. Other airports discharge stormwater 

containing deicing pollutants to soil and groundwater. Many airports have a combination of these 

discharge conditions. Deicing collection and treatment systems vary in design and effectiveness by 

airport. The configuration of airport grounds and infrastructure relative to surface waters, pervious 

surfaces, and groundwater also affect deicing pollutant 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 airports 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 ultimately discharge to nearby surface waters or flow 

beyond airport property lines. In these situations, infiltration 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 temperatures 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 deicing 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 pavement 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 either 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 must 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 limitations 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 of 

permitted 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). 

BOD5

1

30 mg/L 

COD1

120 mg/L 

Ammonia1

2.14 mg/L 

pH1

6.0 - 9.0 s.u. 

Source: MSGP 2013 

1 

These are deicing-related parameters. Collect the four benchmark samples, and any required 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 water12. In accordance with the 2015 MSGP, permittees are required 

to control their discharge as necessary to meet applicable 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 applicable 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. The MSGP WQBELs are applicable to discharges to 

water quality-impaired waters and for new or increased 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 mechanism 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 waterbody can receive without causing or contributing to a 

violation of water quality standards. The assimilative capacity is based on the river flow rate and the state 

water quality standards, and background conditions. The TMDL allocations for point sources are waste 

load allocations and are implemented through limits incorporated in NPDES permits (MSGP FS 2013). 

Requirements for Discharges to Water 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 available 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 MSGP. 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 permittee must implement and maintain any control 

measures or conditions on the site that enabled 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 develop antidegradation policies to protect existing and 

designated uses of surface waters. 

 Tier 1 maintains and protects existing uses and water 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/swimmable” 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 interfere 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 waters 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 directly to waters designated by a State or 

Tribe as Tier 2 or Tier 2.5 for antidegradation purposes under 40 CFR 131.12(a), may be notified 

by the EPA that additional analyses, control measures, or other permit conditions are necessary to 

comply with the applicable antidegradation requirements, or notified that an individual permit 

application is necessary in accordance with the MSGP (MSGP FS 2013). 

2.3.3 Corrective Actions 

Permittees are required to review and revise the selection, design, installation, and implementation of 

their control measures in response to any of the following conditions: 

 An unauthorized release or discharge 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 quality 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 exceeds an applicable benchmark. If less than four 

benchmark samples have been taken, but the results 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 made 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 infeasible (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. Because 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 samples of stormwater discharges examined visually 

for the presence of color, odor, clarity, floating solids, settled solids, suspended 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 collecting the sample and performing visual assessments, 

results of the observations, and probable sources of any observed stormwater contamination. Although 

the visual examination cannot assess the chemical properties 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 limitations. 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 applicability 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 monitoring” 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 measures 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 investigate whether the higher pollutant levels can be 

attributed to some pollutant source or faulty control 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 determine 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 includes resampling within 30 days, submission of an 

exceedance report if the resample also 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 required 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 concern into impaired waters. Operators must first 

determine whether the facility’s discharge is to impaired water, and, if so, identify the pollutants causing 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

41

the impairment, and include them in the NOI. For those permittees discharging to impaired waters 

without an approved or established TMDL, monitoring 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 that do not yet have TMDLs developed, these monitoring 

data are important when developing the TMDL in the future to identify potential sources of the pollutants 

causing the impairment as well as to identify sources that 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 monitoring, sample types, and reporting requirements (MSGP 

FS 2013). 

2.4 Reporting and Recordkeeping 

All monitoring data must be submitted to EPA no later than 30 days after a permittee has received their 

complete laboratory results for all monitored outfalls for the reporting period. The permit requires all 

permittees to submit an annual report to EPA that contains the results of the required comprehensive site 

inspection and a discussion of corrective actions required and/or taken at any time since the previous 

comprehensive site inspection or, for the first comprehensive 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 and 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 perform 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 implementation 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 maintain 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, corrective 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 coverage. 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; and 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

42

7. Eligibility in accordance with federal laws (e.g., Endangered Species Act [ESA], National 

Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]). 

 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

43

3.0Affected 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 alternative. To satisfy the requirements of 1502.2(b) of 

CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, this EA focuses 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 necessary to identify the scope of the action. Given the 

applicability of the MSGP, the scope is limited categorically to cover only new sources of industrial 

discharge from the activities listed in Table 2-3 and geographically where EPA is the permitting authority, 

as listed in Table 2-1. Since the MSGP covers a large geographic area and the nature of the permit does 

not allow for site-specific analysis, nationwide descriptions 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 sources 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 resource 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 contributions to the economic, ecological, recreational, and 

human health of a community or locale. 

Stormwater is an important component of surface water systems because of its potential to introduce 

sediments and other contaminants that could degrade lakes, rivers, and streams. Stormwater flows, which 

may be exacerbated by high proportions of impervious surfaces associated with buildings, roads, and 

parking lots, are important to the management of surface water. Stormwater systems convey precipitation 

away from developed sites to appropriate receiving surface waters. Various systems and devices might be 

used to slow the movement of water. For instance, a large, sudden flow could scour a streambed and 

harm biological resources. Stormwater control systems provide the benefit of reducing sediments and 

other contaminants that would otherwise flow directly into surface waters. Failure to size stormwater 

control systems appropriately to hold or delay conveyance of the largest predicted precipitation event 

often leads to downstream flooding and the environmental and economic damages associated with 

flooding. Higher densities of development, such as those found in urban areas, require greater degrees of 

stormwater management because of the higher proportions 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 irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater 

typically can be described in terms of its depth from the surface, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, 

surrounding geologic composition, and recharge rate. Hydrogeology extends the study of the subsurface 

to water-bearing structures. Hydrogeological information 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 250,000 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 courses “meander” over time in response to natural occurrences that alter 

the landscape (e.g., landslides, tropical typhoons, earthquakes). Humans frequently modify stream 

channels to develop land, protect existing infrastructure, or supply potable water. Smaller streams join 

together to form larger streams, and the coming together 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 are a major water resource in this country. 

Freshwater inland lakes and reservoirs 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 interactions and provide habitat needed to support numerous threatened 

and endangered species. Lakes are also the cornerstone of our nation’s 19 billion dollar 

freshwater fishing industry, form the backbone of numerous state tourism industries, and provide 

countless recreational opportunities. Lakes are bodies of relatively still water, which can be 

formed from many processes, including glaciation, tectonic movements, volcanic activity, and 

rivers. Reservoirs are rivers that have been dammed for human uses (e.g., water supply, power 

generation, recreation). The water 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. Estuaries (including bays and tidal rivers) are bodies of water 

that provide transition zones between fresh river water 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, and other animals, and support recreational activities. 

The coastal watershed starts up at the beginning headwaters 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 diverse group of organisms. Among other habitat 

functions, rivers and estuaries provide breeding and feeding grounds for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

45

animals. Nearshore waters, the areas directly offshore 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 areas) 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 precipitation and, depending on the local climate and 

geology, is unevenly distributed in both quantity and quality. When rain falls or snow melts, some of the 

water evaporates, some is transpired by plants, some 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 the unsaturated zone. In this unsaturated zone, there 

usually is at least a little water, mostly in smaller openings of the soil and rock; the larger openings 

usually contain air instead of water. After a significant 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, groundwater is the largest single supply of fresh water 

available for use by humans. An estimated one million cubic miles of the world’s groundwater is stored 

within one-half mile of the land surface. Only a fraction of this reservoir of groundwater, however, can 

be practicably tapped and made available 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 inherently dependent on regional and local geology 

(USGS 2005). 

 Sand and gravel aquifers, which are typically unconfined, are composed of unconsolidated and 

semiconsolidated materials. Water is held between 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 large 
MSGP 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 highly susceptible to groundwater contamination 

because water moves rapidly through the dissolutioned 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 the 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 another. Compared to third world countries, drinking water quality 

in the United States is good. In 2006, 89.3 percent 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, businesses and citizens all play a role in ensuring that 

drinking water is protected in the U.S. They establish Maximum Contaminant Levels for some pollutants 

and naturally occurring constituents, determine various operational requirements, require public 

notification for violation of standards, provide guidance to state primacy agencies, and require utilities to 

publish consumer confidence reports (EPA 2012d). 

Many communities obtain their drinking water from aquifers. 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 tap this supply. Unfortunately, the groundwater can 

become contaminated by human activity. These chemicals 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 plants and animals, and the habitats, such as wetlands, 

forests, and grasslands, in which they exist. Sensitive and protected biological resources include plant 

and animal species listed as threatened or endangered 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 accomplished through literature reviews 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 diversity 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 animals (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 endangered species includes 619 animal 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 found in part or entirely in the U.S. or its waters. 

There are approximately 125 marine mammal species 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, Amazonian 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 USFWS 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

48

Candidate Species list (USFWS 2013). NMFS maintains 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 Section 3. Direct impacts are caused by the action and 

occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are 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 anticipated 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 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 facilities 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 individual 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 issuing individual permits to new industrial stormwater 

dischargers requiring NPDES permit coverage. Unlike individual permits which require facilities to 

submit detailed application forms on which the permitting authority develops a facility-specific NPDES 

permit, the proposed 2015 MSGP is written to cover a wide range of industrial activities and include 

requirements that apply more broadly to this universe of dischargers; while minimizing impacts to water 

quality from industrial stormwater discharges. In general, 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 permits. Therefore, using a general permit to cover 

numerous facilities reduces paperwork for both permitting authorities and permittees, and ensures 

consistency of permit conditions for similar facilities. 

4.2 Implementation of Control Measures and Effluent Limitations 

Stormwater control measures can be actions (including 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., and of meeting applicable limits. Industrial facility operators must 

select, design, install and implement control measures in accordance with good engineering practices and 

manufacturer’s specifications. They would also need to apply these control measures and BMPs when 

constructing, renovating, or repairing 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 controls and pollution prevention. 

The permit provides operators the flexibility to determine their site-specific controls, taking into 

consideration what controls are most suited for their industry in terms of economic practicability and 

technology availability, and in some cases, considerations 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 discharge from industrial activities would be minimized 

through the mandatory control measures (BMPs, ELGs, and WQBELs) required for coverage under the 

2015 MSGP to meet the technology-based effluent limits and water-quality effluent limitations. 

Therefore, through implementation of control measures by operators, there 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 phosphorus and nitrogen), sediment (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 only at new sources. As discussed in Section 4.1, there were 

approximately 60 new sources over the 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 recharge 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 accidental fuel or lubricant spills from the equipment, 

and increased infiltration of stormwater in areas where vegetation would be removed. 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 that may be transported in stormwater runoff from 

industrial facilities. The potential for fewer pollutants discharged into the environment should have a 

long-term beneficial impact on vegetation and wildlife. 

Vegetation 

Construction of BMPs would result in short-term and long-term impacts on plant communities and 

species. Short-term adverse impacts would include disturbance (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 avoid adverse impacts on wetlands and to 

proactively manage for wetlands during 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 jurisdictional 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 cooperation and consultation. EPA has consulted with the 

USFWS and NMFS to address potential impacts associated 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, allowable 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 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. Since the permit eligibility criteria and the associated procedures in Appendix E 

have changed somewhat, all operators seeking coverage 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 criteria 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 determination 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 operator’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 terms 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 

eligibility 
MSGP 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 must 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 the 
MSGP 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 federally-listed threatened or 

endangered species and all federally-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 or 
MSGP 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 authorization 

addresses 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 office 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 adequately protective, and to ensure the 

operators are making accurate eligibility determinations. 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

56

Potential adverse effects could include the temporary or permanent alteration of site conditions when 

implementing BMPs. During the construction or implementation 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 species 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 operators certify that they meet one of the eligibility 

criteria related to compliance with historic properties 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 subsurface stormwater control measures would affect 

properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 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 allowable non-stormwater discharges do not have the 

potential to have an effect on historic properties 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., construction 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 effect 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) obtained 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 federal 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 runoff from industrial facilities. EPA does not anticipate effects on historic 

properties from the pollutants in the stormwater and allowable non-stormwater discharges from these 
MSGP Environmental Assessment (EA)

57

industrial facilities. Thus, to the extent EPA’s issuance 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 systems, 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 the activities performed to comply with the permit, for 

historic preservation purposes, is limited to the location 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 operators 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 above 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 evaluating impacts, costs, and benefits at the Agency’s 

best estimate of projected activity that will occur under the proposed general permit. Thus, the discussions 

presented above fully anticipate and specifically address 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-specific 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 minimize 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 specific processes and requirements in the general 

permit. Furthermore, EPA has addressed individual site-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 significant cumulative effects will not occur due to 

specific, appropriate, conditions and requirements that 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 the requirements of Federal statutes and policies other 

than the NPDES permit program. EPA has reviewed the proposed MSGP with respect to a number of 

these other Federal statutes and policies. EPA has identified 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/Tribe 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 and tribal requirements that these entities certify are 

necessary in order for the permit to include limits to achieve their water quality centers water quality 

standards. 

In addition, where 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, 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 Federal 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 the Agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species that is federally-listed as endangered 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 Services 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 for permit coverage, that their facility’s stormwater 

discharges, allowable 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 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 operators certify that they meet one of the eligibility 

criteria related to compliance with historic properties protection pursuant to the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA). These criteria are used to identify whether land disturbances associated with 
MSGP 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 Historic 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 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations. Environmental justice refers to the ―fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, 

and policies. 

EPA has incorporated requirements into the 2015 MSGP that will decrease impacts from various 

pollutants from stormwater discharges from 29 industrial sectors to surface waters. No high and adverse 

health or environmental effects, to either the general 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 Final 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/writermanual.cfm?program_id=45 

EPA 2012a EPA 2012. EPA Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Airport Deicing Category, 

April 2012 

EPA 2012b EPA 2012b. EPA’s National Coastal Condition Report IV. September 2012. Available 

at: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/upload/0_NCCR_4_Report_508_boo

kmarks.pdf 

EPA 2012c EPA 2012c. Sole Source Aquifer Protection 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 Systems: Facts and Figures. Updated April 2, 

2012. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/factoids.cfm 

EPA 2013 USEPA 2013. Coastal Watershed Factsheets-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 Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General 

Permit for Stormwater discharges associated with Industrial activity (MSGP). As 

published on September 27, 2013. Available at 

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/upload/msgp2013_proposedpermit1-

7.pdf 

MSGP FS 

2013. 

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

Available at 
MSGP 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 Register of Historic Places. Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ 

USFWS 

2013 

USFWS 2013. Candidate Species Report. Updated 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 

SECTOR-SPECIFIC CONTROL MEASURES

Examples of best management practices (BMPs) applicable to each sector covered in the EBCR are 

provided on the following pages. The BMPs have been 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 Treatment, 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 

2006 
EBCR 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-2 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-3 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-4 
EBCR 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-06-018) 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-6 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-7 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-8 
EBCR 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-06-019) 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-10
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-11
EBCR 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-13
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-14
EBCR 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-06-026) 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-16
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-17
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-18
EBCR 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-06-027) 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-20
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-21
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-22
EBCR 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-06-030) 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-24
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-25
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-26
EBCR 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-06-034) 
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-28
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-29
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-30
EBCR for NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activities 

B-31