storm water regulation: what’s next? presented to: september 30, 2014
Post on 03-Jan-2016
26 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Storm Water Regulation:What’s Next?
Presented to:
September 30, 2014
The Permits of Concern
The New Industrial General Permit
The Recent Phase 1 and Phase 2 Permits
The Renewal of the Construction General Permit
The EPA Drives the Content
Over 50% of fresh water resources are no longer fishable or swimmable
Concerns with industry are contamination from chemicals and spills
Concerns with communities are contamination from chemicals, urban slobber, and hydro-modification
Concerns from construction are sediment transfer and hydro-modification
The Industrial General Permit
Adopted April 1, 2014
Effective July 1, 2015
Will effect a significant amount of businesses not currently covered
SWRCB Stated IGP Goals
Performance Based Model
Improved Data Quality
Incentives and Flexibility
Reduce Compliance Costs (from Previous Drafts, not from current IGP)
Industrial General Permit
Timeline
1991 Board adopted first industrial general permit
1997 Board adopted second industrial general permit
2003 Board hearing on 1st draft of industrial general permit
2005 Board hearing on the 2nd draft permit
2005 Board convened a Blue Ribbon Panel of experts
2006 Blue Ribbon Panel of experts completed report on Numeric Effluent Limits
2006-09
Board delayed development of 3rd draft permit (SMARTS, CGP)
2011 Board hearing of 3rd draft permit
2012 Board hearing of 4th draft permit
2013 August 21, 2013 – Board hearing on final draft
Previous Drafts Not Popular
Significant Changes
Significant Changes from Previous Draft Permit
Significant Changes
Owner may appoint a Duly Authorized Rep. Trade Secrets may be redacted in SMARTS Minimum BMPs, including Training Place holder for future TMDL’s QISP program administered by SWRCB (Current
schedule is ToR process in early 2015) Self-guided training for P.E.’s and P.G.’s Coverage & Annual Report through SMARTS
Significant Changes - Monitoring
Monthly visual observations Pre-storm visual observations not required Storm water discharge visual observations only required
during sampling Sampling frequency changed from quarterly to twice in first
half on year (July 1st – December 31st) and twice in second half of year (January 1st – June 30th)
Proposed NALs are for Oil and Gas, Total Suspended Solids, as well as any Facility specific parameters based on the site assessment. Testing for turbidity and pH but no NAL’s.
Regional Board can add parameters as they see fit.
Monitoring Incentives
Water Quality Exceedances increase Risk Level Risk Level can be reduced with consistent
compliance as proved by sampling Sampling frequency reduction eligibility after 4
consecutive samples QSE below NALs Frequency reduction to 2 samples per year
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Permits
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Permits
Phase 1 and 2 Permits - Generalities
Vary by Region and are drafted at Regional Level in reality. Most have a Regional Approach.
Basin Plan is generally a big driver Typical Significant Provisions:
• LID Design Standards – Post-construction requirements• Oversight Compliance Inspections• Increased review of small projects• Ordinance revisions to comply with permit minimums• Water Quality Monitoring• Onerous Annual Report and Inventory Record Keeping• Staff Training and Community Outreach
Increased costs to Permittees, & lots of new Permittees
The Construction General PermitRenewal
The Current CGP vs. The Future CGP
The Current Construction General Permit
Adopted September 2, 2009, Expired September 1, 2014 Revised in 2010 to remove NEL’s Significant Provisions:
• QSD/QSP Training/Certification Requirements• Significant Inspection/Sampling Regimen• Risk Levels for Traditional, Type Levels for LUPs• Compliance Reporting in SMARTS• Water Quality Effluent Action Levels (NAL’s)• Prescriptive Active Treatment System Regulation• Designation of a Legally Responsible Person
Extended until new permit adopted
What about the Renewal?
What about the Renewal?
DISCLAIMER: MOST OF THIS IS OPINION VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS Staff has begun renewal permit draft Staff has reached out to stakeholders and will have a very
public process Staff position (without Board direction yet) is to issue more
of an “administrative clean up” Permit NEL’s will not come back…NAL’s will remain close to the
same thresholds (assuming EPA buy-in) Training requirements will not be increased Costs to comply should remain the same. 3rd Party Groups will pressure for more requirements
Industry Concerns
Training Requirements NEVER include decision makers or our clients – WE ARE THE TRAINER
Regional Water Quality Control Board interpretations are often not in concert with State Water Board intent, which of course leads to regulatory creep and confusion
Gray areas within the Permit often cost us time and money to investigate or create defensible positions
Far too often, key information not readily available when permits are issued
Input from the people that perform the work is still rare 3rd Party groups have the largest, most organized voice
Questions?
Contact me with questions or to get involved at:Gerald R. Montgomery – Montgomery & Associates, Inc.
gerald@montgomery-assoc.com
top related