EPA is seeking public comment on a proposed 2020 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for stormwater discharges from industrial activity. This proposed permit would replace the 2015 MSGP upon finalization. This proposed permit would cover stormwater discharges from industrial facilities in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. Per a 2016 settlement agreement, EPA considered recommendations outlined in a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s National Research Council (NRC) study.Exit 

EPA will take comments on the proposal during a 90-day comment period, which ends on June 1, 2020.

The permit, fact sheet, and other associated documents can be found in the links below and on the docket. Comments must be submitted on www.regulations.gov for docket ID # EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372.

• Federal Register Notice
• Proposed 2020 MSGP (Permit Parts 1-9)
• Proposed 2020 MSGP Appendices A-P
• Proposed 2020 MSGP Appendix Q
• Proposed 2020 MSGP Fact Sheet
• Proposed 2020 MSGP Cost Analysis
• Docket for all documents and supporting materials

• Informational Webcasts
• Summary of Proposed Changes in Permit
• Additional Requests for Public Comments

Informational Webcasts

EPA hosted two informational webcast to give an overview of the proposed changes to the permit on March 10 and April 9, 2020. Both webcasts had similar content and are posted below.

• View the presentation slides for the second webcast held on April 9, 2020.
   
• View the recording of the second webcast held on April 9, 2020, below:

• View the recording of the first webcast held on March 10, 2020, below:

Summary of Proposed Changes in Permit

Key proposed changes in the permit include:

1. Streamlining the permit
   EPA proposes to streamline and simplify language throughout the permit to present the requirements in a generally more clear and readable manner.
2. Eligibility for stormwater discharges to a federal CERCLA site
   The 2015 MSGP requires facilities in EPA Region 10 that discharge stormwater to certain CERCLA or Superfund sites to notify the EPA Regional Office in advance and requires EPA Regional Office to determine whether the facility is eligible for permit coverage. In the proposed 2020 MSGP, EPA requests comment on whether this current eligibility criterion should be applied in all EPA Regions for facilities that discharge to Federal CERCLA sites that may be of concern for recontamination from stormwater discharges. See Part 1.1.7 in the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 1.
3. Eligibility related to application of coal-tar sealcoat
   EPA proposes that operators, who will use coal-tar sealcoat to initially seal or to re-seal their paved surfaces where industrial activities are located and thereby discharge polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in stormwater, would be eligible for coverage under the 2020 MSGP only if they eliminate such discharge(s). Alternatively, operators who wish to pave their surfaces where industrial activities are located with coal-tar sealcoat may apply for an individual permit. See Part 1.1.8 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 2.
4. Discharge authorization related to enforcement action
   EPA proposes to establish a discharge authorization waiting period of 60 calendar days after NOI submission for any operators whose discharges were not previously covered under the 2015 MSGP and who have a pending stormwater-related enforcement action by EPA, a state, or a citizen (to include both NOVs by EPA or a state and notices of intent to bring a citizen suit). See Part 1.3.3, Table 1-2 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 4.
5. Public sign of permit coverage
   EPA proposes that the 2020 MSGP include a requirement that MSGP operators must post a sign of permit coverage at a safe, publicly accessible location in close proximity to the facility. See Part 1.3.6 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 6.
6. Consideration of major storm control measure enhancements
   EPA proposes that operators would be required to consider implementing enhanced measures for facilities located in areas that could be impacted by stormwater discharges from major storm events that cause extreme flooding conditions. See Part 2.1.1.8 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 8.
7. Universal benchmark monitoring for all sectors
   EPA proposes to require all facilities to conduct benchmark monitoring for three indicator parameters of pH, Total Suspended Solids, and Chemical Oxygen Demand, called universal benchmark monitoring. See Part 4.2.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and requests for comment 10 and 13.
8. Impaired waters monitoring
   Under the 2015 MSGP, operators discharging to impaired waters must monitor once per year for pollutants for which the waterbody is impaired and can discontinue monitoring if these pollutants are not detected or not expected in the discharge. EPA proposes to require operators discharging to impaired waters to monitor only for those pollutants that are both causing impairments and associated with the industrial activity and/or benchmarks. The proposal specifies that, if the monitored pollutant is not detected in the discharge for three consecutive years, or it is detected but the operator has determined that its presence is caused solely by natural background sources, operators may discontinue monitoring for that pollutant. See Part 4.2.4.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet.
9. Updating benchmark values
   EPA proposes to modify and/or requests comment on benchmark thresholds for selenium, arsenic, cadmium, magnesium, iron, and copper based on the latest toxicity information. See Parts 4.2.1 and 8 of the proposed fact sheet and fact sheet, and requests for comment 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
10. Sectors with new benchmarks
    The 2015 MSGP does not require sector-specific benchmark monitoring for Sector I (Oil and Gas Extraction), Sector P (Land Transportation and Warehousing), or Sector R (Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yards). Based on the NRC study recommendation which identified potential sources of stormwater pollution from these sectors, EPA proposes to add benchmark monitoring requirements for these three sectors. See Part 8 of the proposed permit, Parts 4.2.1.1 and 8 of the proposed fact sheet, and request for comment 12.
11. Additional implementation measures
    EPA proposes revisions to the 2015 MSGP’s provisions regarding benchmark monitoring exceedances. EPA proposes new tiered Additional Implementation Measures (AIM), that are triggered by benchmark monitoring exceedances. Operators would be required to respond to different AIM levels with increasingly robust control measures depending on the nature and magnitude of the benchmark threshold exceedance. See Part 5.2 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and requests for comment 21, 22, 23, and 26.
12. Revisions to sector-specific fact sheets
    EPA proposes updates to the existing sector-specific fact sheets that include information about control measures and stormwater pollution prevention for each sector to incorporate emerging stormwater control measures. See Part 5.2.2.2 and Appendix Q of the proposed permit and fact sheet.

Top of Page

Additional Requests for Public Comments

In addition to the specific proposed changes discussed above on which EPA seeks comment, the Agency also requests comment on the following specific issues:

1. Eligibility related to use of cationic chemicals
   EPA requests comment on adding an eligibility requirement to the MSGP for operators who may elect to use cationic treatment chemicals to comply with the MSGP, similar to that eligibility requirement in EPA’s Construction General Permit (CGP). See Part 1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 3.
2. Change NOI form
   EPA requests comment on whether a separate paper Change NOI form would be useful for facilities for submitting modifications to a paper NOI form. See Part 1.3.4 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 5.
3. New acronym for the No Exposure Certification (NOE)
   EPA requests comment on changing the acronym for the No Exposure Certification from “NOE” to “NEC” to more accurately represent what the acronym stands for. See Part 1.5 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 7.
4. Alternative approaches to benchmark monitoring
   EPA requests comment on viable alternative approaches to benchmark monitoring for characterizing industrial sites’ stormwater discharges, quantifying pollutant concentrations, and assessing stormwater control measure effectiveness. See Part 4.2.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 9.
5. Inspection-only option in lieu of benchmark monitoring
   EPA requests comment on whether the permit should include an inspection-only option for “low-risk” facilities in lieu of conducting benchmark monitoring. See Part 4.2.1.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 11.
6. Information about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
   EPA requests comment on information and data related to pollutant sources under all industrial sectors with petroleum hydrocarbon exposure that can release polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) via stormwater discharges, any concentrations of individual PAHs and/or total PAHs at industrial sites, the correlation of PAHs and COD, and appropriate pollution prevention/source control methods and stormwater control measures that could be used to address PAHs. See Part 4.2.1.2 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 20.
7. Modifying the method for determining natural background pollutant contributions
   EPA requests comment on changing the threshold for the natural background exception throughout the permit from the 2015 MSGP, which required no net facility contributions, to the proposed 2020 MSGP method of subtracting natural background concentrations from the total benchmark exceedance to determine if natural background levels are solely responsible for the exceedance. EPA requests comment on implications of this change and other factors the Agency should consider in proposing this change to the exception. EPA also requests comment on other appropriate methods to characterize natural background pollutant concentrations. See Part 5.2.4 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and requests for comment 24 and 25.
8. Clarifications to Sector G monitoring requirements
   EPA requests comment on whether the newly proposed language in Part 8.G.8.3 clarifies the monitoring requirements for that part and if the proposed monitoring frequency is appropriate. EPA also requests comment on suspending the analytical monitoring currently required for radium and uranium in Part 8.G.8.3 until a relevant water quality criterion and possible benchmark value can be developed. EPA requests comment on any alternative or additional clarifications to the monitoring frequencies the Agency should consider for this Part. See Part 8.G.8.3 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 27.

Top of Page