- Other Articles -
 

As you know, the EPA's Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP 2000) expired on October 30, 2005. 
This permit has been administratively continued until a new permit is issued.  EPA has said that the new permit will likely be issued by early 2007.

For a summary of the proposed regulations published on
December 5, 2005 - see below.  We'll keep you covered!

For more information please call Lucy Servidio at 508-970-0033 ext. 114

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the proposed Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP 2006) for storm water discharges on December 1, 2005. The seventy (70) page fact sheet that accompanied the new proposed permit includes about 15 pages of revisions made to the MSGP 2000. Many of these changes are technical language changes. However, there are some significant changes that will affect all of those companies who are currently covered under the MSGP 2000, who intend to continue coverage under the MSGP 2006 when the final permit is issued and those new facilities getting coverage under the permit. EPA has said that it is very possible that the MSGP 2006 will be finalized by early 2007.  However, they could not give a definite date.

Lessons Learned from MSGP 2000

During the last five years of MSGP 2000, the EPA has gained a better understanding of whether the regulated community, those companies with industrial activities exposed to storm water, has managed their storm water issues properly and where improvements need to be made in order to help prevent contamination of storm water and ultimately, surface water. The EPA has also tapped into other databases such as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to better understand which industrial sectors should be focused on, what contaminants are being discharged and how much contamination is being contributed to surface water via storm water.

In general, the MSGP 2000 relied heavily on the premise that facilities would prevent contamination of storm water and therefore not jeopardize the water quality of receiving streams by implementing best management practices (BMPs). BMPs are good engineering practices that range from structural controls such as the installation of Vortechnics units, which remove suspended solids and oil, to good house keeping practices, which could include clean up around dumpsters and compactors.

Depending on its industrial sector, companies would measure how effective their BMPs were by either monitoring for analytical parameters (e.g., zinc, nitrate/nitrogen) and/or by taking quarterly visual samples in order to observe whether there were any solids, foam, discolorations, etc. If a company determined through analytical and/or visual monitoring, that a BMP was not working, it was the company’s responsibility to “go back to the drawing board” and find a more effective BMP to prevent contamination of storm water from their site. This was all based on the “honor system”. After the second and the fourth year of the permit, companies would submit their monitoring data to the EPA, with reasons why they exceeded the bench marks and a description of the corrective actions that would be taken in order to not exceed the benchmarks in the future, and that would be that!

That was Then, This is Now-Proposed MSGP 2006

The proposed MSGP 2006 continues to be based on a similar focus of effective BMPs as the core of the program, however, the EPA kicks it up a notch by requiring more rigorous reporting (i.e., within 30 days of receiving the results) and uses stronger language which clarifies which instances are considered to be violations of the proposed MSGP 2006. There is much more emphasis put on documenting what the company will do to rethink or improve the BMP in order to ensure that corrective actions will be effective.

The EPA has learned from the MSGP 2000, that it does not want companies to wait until the second year of the permit, to find out which BMPs are not working. The proposed MSGP 2006 requires quarterly analytical monitoring during the first year of the permit. If the average of the results does not exceed the applicable benchmark, the company does not have to conduct analytical monitoring for the remainder of the permit. If the average of the results does exceed the applicable benchmark, the company is required to continue monitoring for another year of the permit. Also, the EPA will require all industrial sectors to monitor for total suspended solids (TSS). TSS monitoring is relatively inexpensive and a good indicator as to whether there is a significant amount of erosion occurring on-site.

Perhaps the most significant change is that the proposed MSGP 2006 describes new applicability and monitoring requirements for those facilities discharging to impaired streams, which have been assigned Total Maximum Daily Loadings (TMDLs). The onus is put on the facility to contact its state agency to determine whether it has additional monitoring requirements or whether it will be allowed to discharge to the impaired stream. It is not clear to what extent EPA will expect facilities to determine whether their discharge exceeds water quality standards.

There are many requirements that are still part of the permitting process such as:

• Submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI), now available in an easy on-line format,

• Determining whether your discharge or construction of BMPs will affect Endangered Species and/or Historical sites,

• Developing and/or updating a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3), which includes basically the same types of information, however the EPA has asked for much greater detail in site condition information. Some examples include average precipitation for the site, run-off coefficients, more detailed chemical identification for potential pollutant sources, individuals for SWP3 team members and documentation of SWP3 training.

Overall, the proposed MSGP 2006 is written in a format that is much easier to understand and much harder to point to and say “well it’s unclear as to whether that’s a violation to the permit”. The proposed MSGP 2006 is organized in five parts: Part 1-Coverage under the Permit, Part 2-Storm Water Pollution Prevention Planning, Part 3-Compliance Evaluations, Monitoring, Corrective Action, Reporting and Record Keeping, Part 4-Sector Specific Requirements, Part 5- State/Tribal Requirements and appendices. Please refer to the attached table for selected significant differences between the MSGP 2000 and the proposed MSGP 2006.

For assistance with MSGP 2006 or if you'd like to discuss the proposed changes, please contact Lucille Servidio at 508-970-0033 ext. 114 or click here to request further information.

Back to Articles

© Copyright 1996-2008, Capaccio Environmental Engineering, Inc. All Rights Reserved