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