### Page 1 of 6

September 9 , 2013

MEMORANDUM

To: File

From: Erika Farris, Environmental Scientist, U.S. EPA

Re: Summary of Changes Made to EPA’s Draft Multi

- Sector General Permit at the Request of OMB or other Federal Agencies

This memorandum includes a summary of changes made to EPA’s draft Multi

- Sector General Permit (MSGP) in response to comments received during Inter

- Agency review. The

draft MSGP was submitted to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) on April 16, 2013.

OMB closed its review on September 9 , 2013.

The following includes a part

- by

- part summary of the changes made to the draft permit

, fact sheet, and Federal Register notice . This list does not include changes initiated by EPA during Inter

- Agency review to impr ove clarity or consistency, or to correct errors.

Part 1

Part 1.1.3

– Added the underlined text: Pavement wash waters where no detergents or hazardous cleaning products are used (e.g., bleach, hydrofluoric acid, muriatic acid, sodium hydroxide), and the wash waters do not come into contact with oil and grease deposits or any other toxic or hazardous materials

. (unless oil and grease deposits have been cleaned using dry clean

- up methods )

. You are prohibited from directing any authorized pavement wash waters directly into any surface water

, or storm drain inlet unless you have implemented appropriate control measures that meet the non

- numeric
effluent limits in Part 2.1.2 . Where appropriate control measures are not in place, wash
water runoff must first undergo treatment prior to discharge such as filtration, detention,

or settlement.



### Part 2

Part 2.1.2.1

– Added the underlined text: “ Ensure that all washwater , with the exception

of discharges from routine building washdown and pavement wash water described in
Part 1.1.3, drains to a sanitary sewer, sump, or other proper collection system (i.e., not the stormwater drainage system).”



### Part 2.1.2.3

– Changed bag house maintenance from monthly to quarterly. 

### Also added the following text: “ Note: In this context, the term “immediately” requires you to, on the same day a condition requiring maintenance is found, take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution is installed and made operational. However , if a problem is identified at a time in the work day when it is too late to initiate corrective action, the initiation of corrective action must begin on the following work day.”

### Page 2 of 6

Part 2.1.2.4

– Added the underlined text: “ 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 ; ”



### Part 3

Part 3. 2 .1

– Chang ed the following text “Whenever any of the characteristics above are visually detected or observed in a sample, you must initiate the corrective action procedures in Part 4” 

### to say “Whenever the visual assessment shows obvious signs of stormwater pollution , you must initiate the corrective action procedures in Part 4.”



### Part 4

Part 4.1

– Added the underlined text: “ A required control measure was never installed, was installed incorrectly, or not in accordance with Parts 2 and/or 8, or is not being properly operated or maintained ” 

### Also changed the following text: “ Visual assessments of your discharge indicate pollutants are being discharged 

### ” to say: “ If there are obvious indicators of stormwater pollution, such as color, odor, floating solids, settle d solids, suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, etc. 

### ”

Part 4.2.1

– Added the underlined text: “ Note: In this context, the term “immediately” requires you to, on the same day a condition requiring corrective action is found, take all reasonable steps to minim ize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution is installed and made operational. However, if a problem is identified at a time in the work day when it is too late to initiate corrective action, the initiation of corrective
action mu st begin on the following work day. ”



### Part 5

Part 5.1

– Made the following changes: “ The SWPPP shall be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and to industry standards. The SWPPP may be developed by any person, but it shall be certified in accordance with Part 5.2.7 by a person with the education, experience and accountability necessary for its implementation . If EPA concludes that the SWPPP is not in substantial compliance with
Part 5.2 of this permit, EPA may also require the SWPPP to be prepared, reviewed, amended as necessary, and or certified signed by a Professional Engineer, or for Sector G, H or J, by a Professional Geologist, with the education and

, experience and accountability necessary to for developing prepar e and implementing a n a dequate

SWPPP. ”



### Part 5.2.5.1

– Made the following changes: “The SWPPP shall include the schedule and frequency for completing each maintenance task maintaining all control measures used to comply with the effluent limits in Part 2 .”



### Part 5.4.2

– Added the underlined text: “ You must retain a complete copy of your current SWPPP required by this permit at the facility in any accessible format. A complete SWPPP includes any documents incorporated by reference and all documentat ion supporting your permit eligibility pursuant to Part 5.2.6 of this permit, as well as your signed and

### Page 3 of 6 dated certification page. Regardless of the format, the SWPPP must be immediately available to facility employees, EPA, a state or tribe, the operator of an MS4 receiving discharges from the site; and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the time of an onsite inspection. Your current SWPPP or certain information from your current SWPPP described below must also be made available to the public (except any confidential business information (CBI) or restricted information (as defined in Appendix A)) , but you must clearly identify those portions of the SWPPP that are being withheld fr om public access; to do so, you must comply with one of the following two options: ”



### Part 5.5

– Removed the following language from Part 5 and instead require that spills be logged as part of the corrective action documentation in Part 4 : “ A log of significant leaks, spills or other releases that could be exposed to stormwater. Include the following information: a description of the incident including material, date/time, amount, location, and reason for spill; response actions, date/time clean

- up c ompleted, notifications made, and staff involved. Note any of the leaks, spills or other releases that resulted in discharges of pollutants to waters of U.S., through stormwater or otherwise. Also include any measures taken to prevent the reoccurrence of s uch releases (see Part 2.1.2.4).”



### Part 6

Part 6.2.1.2

– Added the underlined text: “ Natural background pollutants do not include legacy pollutants from earlier activity on your site, or pollutants in run

- on from neighboring sources which are not natural ly occurring, such as other industrial sites or roadways

. However, permittees may be eligible to discontinue monitoring for pollutants that occur solely from run

- on sources and should consult the appropriate EPA Regional Office for related guidance.”



### P art 8

Part 8.G, 8.H, 8.I, and 8.J

– Make the following change: “ All erosion and sedimentation control measures must be inspected either: (1) every 7 days ; or (2) once every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of a storm event of 0.25 inches or greater. ”



### Appendix A

Added the following definition: “ Restricted Information is information that is privileged or that is otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to applicable statutes, Executive Orders, or regulations. Such information includes, but is not limited to: Classified national security information, protected critical infrastructure information, sensitive security information, and proprietary business information

. ”



### Added the following definition: “ Saline water

– for the purposes of this permit, a waterbody with salinity that exceeds 0.5 parts per thousand (by mass), unless otherwise defined as a coastal or marine water by the applicable state or tribal surface water quality standards .”

### Page 4 of 6

Appendix E

Deleted draft additional requirements for additional monitoring, inspections, and maintenance for facilities establishing their eligibility under the Part 1.1.4.5 criterion C. Also reduced the Criterion C worksheet review time from 60 days to 30 days, and removed the requirement that Part 1.1.4.5 eligibility be verified annually.

Appendix G

Added the following note: “ Note: You are not required to post any confidential business information (CBI) or restricted information (as defined in Appendix A) (such information may be redacted), but you must clearly identify those portions of the SWPPP that are being withheld from public access .”



### Fact Sheet

Part 2.1.2.3

– Added the underlined text: “ If a permittee finds that their control measures need to be replaced or repaired, Part 2.1.2.3 requires that they immediately take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution is installed and made operational, including cleaning up any contaminated surfaces so that the material will not discharge in subseque nt storm events. The permit specifies that “immediately” means that all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants must be taken on the same day the repair or replacement of a stormwater control is identified until a permanent solu tion is installed and made operational. However, if a problem is identified at a time in the work day when it is too late to take action, the initiation of action must begin on the following work day. EPA clarifies that “all reasonable steps” does not nece ssitate taking action when it is unsafe to do so (e.g., due to inclement weather) .”



### Part 6 .2.1

. – Added the following request for comment:

These benchmark monitoring requirements have come under considerable scrutiny since they were established in the 19 95 MSGP with some stakeholders voicing support for more intensive monitoring requirements and other stakeholders recommending the replacement of monitoring with a combination of control measures and onsite inspections. EPA has received comments from certa in stakeholders that the benchmark monitoring requirements are overly burdensome, and that modifications of control measures in response to exceedances do not reduce future exceedances. EPA has also received feedback that the monitoring requirements do no t adequately characterize the pollutant concentrati ons in stormwater discharges. Specifically, concerns were raised about the variability of stormwater discharges and whether the discharges could be sufficiently characterized from the limited number of gr ab samples required under the
MSGP. In addition, some commenters believed that the benchmarks were not valid indicators of water quality concerns from storm events, in part because the benchmark may not account for the dilution of the discharge that occur s during a storm event, and that 30 minute first flush samples are not representative of the longer term exposures used to derive the water quality criteria that form the basis for most benchmarks. Other commenters expressed concerns that the benchmark lev els are not protective enough due to the high levels of contaminants in the first flush. Concerns were also raised about

### Page 5 of 6 the difficulties in meeting certain benchmark levels

. In July 2006, the EPA requested that the National Research Council (NRC) revie w the EPA’s stormwater program and make associated policy recommendations. As part of this study, the EPA asked NRC to consider how useful monitoring is for both determining the potential of a discharger to contribute to a water quality standards violatio n and for determining the adequacy of stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs). NRC completed their study in 2008 and published their findings in a report titled “ Urban Stormwater Management in the United States .” The report is available on EPA’s w ebsite

at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nrc_stormwaterreport.pdf . NRC’s finding on monitoring of discharges from industries can be found in Chapter 4.

The NRC offered a suggestion for a monitoring program that is tied to the level of risk posed by the stormwater discharges from each type of facility. A full description of this suggestion is provided in the NRC report under the section entitled “Recommendations
for Industrial Stormwater Monitoring”. The NRC suggested that sites can be categorized into low, medium, and high risk categories and that monitoring could be tailored to the
level of risk. Facilities in the low

- risk category (i.e., those with limited stormwater exposure
to indu strial operations) would have visual inspections with no monitoring requirements, and could use simple guidance manuals to select and size appropriate stormwater controls. Facilities designated as medium

- risk would perform site inspections and modeling su pplemented by suitable outfall monitoring to ensure compliance. The facility would develop an “event mean concentration” that would be compared to “allowable discharge conditions”. Exceedances would be allowed for a “small fraction”
of the monitored eve nts. High

- risk facilities would perform visual inspections and modeling, in conjunction with monitoring every storm event during the permit term.

The EPA is seeking comment on a risk

- based monitoring approach to replace the benchmark monitoring requirem ents under the MSGP. Specifically, how should the risk categories be defined? What should the monitoring frequencies be for medium and high risk facilities? What should the allowable discharges concentrations be? Given the number of monitoring events (dozens or more per year) envisioned by this type of scheme for medium and high risk facilities, would a risk

- based approach to monitoring be economically practicable? EPA plans to evaluate this concept and to consider information submitted in response to this request as it considers its proposal for benchmark monitoring requirements for the 2018 permit.

EPA has conducted an analysis of the results of benchmark monitoring and has placed this study in the docket for the permit. This analysis shows that com pliance with the monitoring requirements is a significant issue and that mistakes are common. For instance, the record was missing information, the parameter name was not provided, monitoring data was not associated with the benchmark monitoring program, a nd hardness data was missing for the 6 hardness

- dependent metals. EPA also requested a copy of the facility’s SWPPP and discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) from 35 facilities
and received SWPPPs and DMRs from 20 facilities. Based on a review of this very limited sample, EPA found that most facilities (89%) are developing complete SWPPPs, but there is significant noncompliance with monitoring requirements. Only 35% of facilities submitted complete monitoring data and all facilities that submitted benchmark monitoring data had at least one benchmark exceedance. Of the facilities that completed benchmark monitoring, 84% identified corrective actions. None of the
facilities reviewed had documented a clear reduction in benchmark exceedances after implementing corrective actions; most facilities continued to have benchmark
exceedances after the corrective actions. Note that due to the limited number of SWPPPs reviewed (20 out of approximately 2,365) these findings are not statistically

### Page 6 of 6 significant.

Based on this very limited analysis of benchmark monitoring, EPA is aware that facilities that report exceedances of benchmark values have been unable to find cost

- effective modifications to their management practices to eliminate these exceedances. In some

cases this may be due to natural background concentrations, or other factors beyond a facility’s reasonable control. EPA requests comment on whether it should provide some type of waiver from benchmark monitoring for facilities covered under the 2008 permit

tha t demonstrate that a past benchmark exceedance was due to factors not under their control, and that there has been no change to these factors since they last conducted benchmark monitoring. EPA welcomes any suggestions on the details of
how such a waiver might work.



### Part 6.2.1.1

– Added the underlined text: “For this proposed permit, 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 acu te 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.” 

### Also deleted the following

statement: “Based on DMR data reported under previous permits, EPA believes that most facilities with effective control measures can meet these targets.”



### Part 6.2.4

– Added the underlined text: “ No monitoring is required when a waterbody’s

bio logical communities are impaired but no pollutant is specified as causing the impairment, or when a waterbody’s impairment is related to hydrologic modification, impaired hydrology, or other non

- pollutant (e.g., exotic species, habitat alterations, objecti onable deposits) .”



### Part 7.1

– Added the following request for comment: “ EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should consider allowing long

- term waivers from electronic reporting (i.e., one waiver request can be used to waive electronic reporting for the permit term), and if so, under what conditions long

- term waivers should be granted .”



### Federal Register Notice

Included the following statement: “ EPA expects the economic impact on entities covered under this permit, in cluding small businesses, to be minimal. A copy of EPA’s economic analysis, titled, ‘‘ Cost Impact Analysis for the Multi

- Sector General Permit (MSGP) ’’ is available in the docket for this permit

. The economic impac t analysis
indicates that while there will be some increm ental increase in the costs of c omplying with the new permit, these costs will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. 

### “