Our recommendations for improving training and qualification in the next generation of TX and EPA MSGP permits.
All industrial stormwater permits require training.
Sometimes that training is robust multi-day courses, external instructors, or formal programs. But sometimes it’s far simpler: a one-hour in-house employee training intended to prepare someone to manage a complex, technical, and ongoing compliance program.
So here’s the question worth asking:
If someone attends a training, does that automatically make them Qualified Industrial Stormwater Personnel, prepared to manage industrial stormwater compliance?
Prepared to:
identify pollutant sources and exposure pathways across a real facility,
evaluate whether BMPs are effective (not just present),
recognize when conditions trigger corrective actions,
document inspections in a way that holds up during enforcement,
understand how inspections, monitoring, and the SWPPP actually connect?
Or are we quietly assuming competence where none has been demonstrated?
Training Is Required, But What Does It Prove?
All MSGP permits require training to be conducted and documented. But documentation of training does not demonstrate proficiency.
Attendance alone doesn’t show that someone can apply what they’ve learned in a dynamic, operational environment, especially when facilities are complex, staff turnover is common, and compliance decisions carry real consequences.
So the next question becomes unavoidable:
If training alone is the standard, how do we know someone is truly “qualified”?
A Closer Look at How “Qualified Personnel” Is Defined
This is where the structure of the permit itself matters.
Current Permit Definition:
Qualified Personnel. A person or persons who are knowledgeable of the requirements of this general permit, familiar with the industrial facility, knowledgeable of the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) at the industrial facility, able to assess conditions and activities that could impact stormwater quality at the facility, and able to evaluate the effectiveness of control measures.
At face value, this sounds reasonable. But it raises important questions:
How does a facility demonstrate that someone is “knowledgeable” or “able”?
What evidence shows that familiarity translates into competent decision-making?
How does an inspector or regulator verify proficiency beyond a training record?
Now compare that with a more explicit definition developed by Acorn EnviroComply staff:
Proposed Texas MSGP Definition (Conceptual):
Qualified Personnel. Person(s) designated by the permittee in the SWPPP and identified through the STEERS portal who are responsible for conducting routine facility inspections and evaluating the effectiveness of stormwater pollution prevention measures and controls. Each Qualified Person must maintain an individual STEERS account and attest to meeting the permit’s qualification requirements.
Qualified Personnel must:
have documented training relevant to MSGP requirements and the facility’s stormwater controls;
have documented site-specific familiarity with industrial activities, drainage patterns, and control measures;
have documented evidence of proficiency to perform assigned compliance duties (e.g., competency checklist, documented relevant experience, or training with a measurable completion standard); and
have sufficient authority to ensure corrective actions and SWPPP updates are implemented. Documentation supporting the designation, qualification, and authority of each Qualified Person must be maintained in the SWPPP.
Both definitions aim to ensure inspections and compliance decisions are made by capable individuals. The difference is how capability is established.
One definition relies on assumed competence. The other requires competence to be explicitly designated, documented, and affirmed.
So the question becomes:
Which definition actually supports consistent compliance and defensible inspections?
Why This Shift Matters for Regulators and Municipalities
Strengthening expectations for Qualified Personnel is not about adding bureaucracy; it’s about improving how compliance works in practice.
When facilities and professionals are expected to demonstrate competence, not just document training, self-compliance improves. Issues are identified earlier, decisions are more defensible, and corrective actions are implemented before problems escalate. For regulators and municipalities, this means
fewer surprises
fewer repeat findings
less enforcement driven by preventable gaps
Clearer definitions also create real accountability. Roles are explicitly defined, responsibility is documented, and expectations are consistent across inspections and enforcement. That clarity supports professionalism and more uniform program implementation.
Just as importantly, this approach shifts the focus from writing new rules to ensuring existing requirements are understood and implemented. Clear definitions also establish a common language and shared benchmarks between facilities, municipalities, and regulators, making compliance discussions more efficient and productive.
Over time, stronger expectations for Qualified Personnel reduce, not increase, regulatory burden by making compliance more consistent and defensible.
Why This Shift Matters for Facilities
For facilities, clearer expectations provide confidence and control.
When personnel understand the permit and its requirements, facilities are better positioned to engage with regulators and municipalities in a meaningful way. Decisions can be explained, corrective actions justified, and compliance discussions grounded in shared understanding rather than assumptions or secondhand interpretations.
Clear definitions also improve internal accountability.
Responsibilities are assigned intentionally, expectations are explicit, and continuity is easier to maintain through staff changes.
Facilities to move from reacting to enforcement to actively participating in compliance conversations.
Ultimately, clearer expectations don’t just make compliance easier, they help facilities operate stronger, more defensible stormwater programs.
The Bigger Question
Are industrial stormwater programs built on assumptions… or on demonstrated capability? Because the goal isn’t more rules. It’s better outcomes with fewer surprises.
I’m curious to hear from others:
How does your facility define “qualified” today?
What actually gives regulators confidence in your program?
Would clearer standards help facilities or simply make expectations explicit?
Let’s discuss.
