The presenters expressed a variety of serious concerns about the Draft General Permit.   Presenters expressed politely and professionally, but with passion, to the three State Water Board members in attendance, including Board Chair Charles R. Hoppin, Board Vice-Chair Frances Spivy-Weber, and Board Member Tam Doduc. 

The Board heard from various environmental groups and businesses and the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), as well as, politicians, trade associations, school districts, and municipalities from across the State.  While many points were made by the presenters, a few continued to be repeated by the various presenters.

The positions expressed by the environmental group “California Coastal Keepers Alliance” was essentially reiterated by other environmental group presenters.  Their general position included support for the Draft General Permit, increased compliance enforcement, public access to stakeholder information, Numeric Effluent Limits (NELs), no consideration for run-on or other background influences, and the elimination of monitoring groups.  The environmental groups expressed a desire for required treatment controls for every permittee, expanded General Permit coverage of businesses currently not required to have coverage, immediate violations to be issued for NEL exceedances with no Tiered Numeric Action Levels (NALs), expanding the definition of a qualifying storm to all hours, not just regularly scheduled daylight business hours, added inspections to the current Draft General Permit inspections, NELs to automatically be considered as causing or contributing to an exceedance of the receiving water quality standard, and opposing the option to composite a facility’s  various sampled outfalls.

Following the presentations by the environmental groups, Mr. Hoppin requested that Mr. Geoff Brosseau, Executive Director of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) and his team, make their presentations.  Mr. Brosseau began with an introductory presentation of General Permit areas, which were later elaborated on by other CASQA members.  Mr. Brosseau expressed several areas of concern about the Draft General Permit.  CASQA found the Draft General Permit to be too complex and the NALs to be in effect NELs.   Mr. Brosseau mentioned the current benchmark approach to a General Permit is a more appropriate approach to storm water permit compliance, as reflected in the Federal Multi-Sector General Permit.  Following Mr. Brosseau, Susan Paulson, PhD, gave a presentation outlining CASQA’s position concerning the NELs in the Draft General Permit as unrealistic.  As support for her position, Ms. Paulson cited storm water sampling performed on vacant land and had never encountered industrial activity.  She noted storm water sampling of analytical results from vacant land exceeded the proposed NELs.

Following CASQA, presenters representing businesses, trade associations, school districts, and municipalities expressed their support of CASQA’s comments and concerns relative to the current economy of shrinking budgets.  The Draft General Permit appears to be another unfounded State mandate, which will cause certain economic impact by requiring additional sampling, inspections, and BMPs.  Presenter’s also expressed the increased cost associated with the “unsupported” proposed NELs.  The proposed NELs would cause many permitees, who are currently meeting all permit requirements, to fall out of compliance with permit conditions.  This would in turn require many facilities to install new costly treatment systems or modify existing ones.  The proposed NELs may also cause many stakeholders to incur fines for NEL exceedances and become vulnerable to third party litigation for being in violation of the General Permit.

Two visitors to the hearing, Jeff Miller, State Assemblymen who represents the 71^st Assembly District and later in the day, State Senator Rod Wright who represents 25^th Senate District appeared to capture the attention of the Board members.  Assemblyman Miller arrived during the CASQA presentation and Mr. Hoppin allowed him to immediately address the Board.  Assemblyman Miller said several from his district along with other State Assembly members expressed concern that the Draft General Permit came as a surprise and was on the “fast track to adoption.”  He said Draft General Permit regulations were seen by many in his district and the State Assembly as “over reaching and burdensome.”  He went on to inform all present that the Assembly was drafting a letter to the Board requesting the Board to slow down the adoption process.   Mr. Miller’s comments were greeted with applause from the majority of the hearing attendees. 

Shortly before the afternoon break, Senator Rod Wright arrived, Mr. Hoppin also allowed him to immediately address the Board.  Senator Wright spoke of the declining California economy and cited several examples showing business in California as too expensive and causing business owners to look to other states.  Senator Wright stated, referring to the Draft General Permit, “California does not need to take the lead with these proposed regulations again, but needs to consider what other states are doing and perhaps follow their lead.”  He expressed the importance to the Board of finding a balance between cost of regulating and the impact on protecting the environment.  Senator Wright indicated that bills were currently being introduced in the State Capital, which would require all future regulatory requirements to consider the fiscal impact as part of the development process.  At points throughout his presentation, Senator Wright was momentarily interrupted by spontaneous applause from the audience.  

In response to Senator Wright’s comments, Mr. Hoppin stated that the Board developed the Draft General Permit, in part, as a response to third party lawsuits and the rulings handed to the Board. 

Upon the conclusion of the final presenter, Board member Doduc requested the Executive Director of CASQA, Mr. Brosseau, to come back to the podium.   She requested CASQA to provide the Board with more information and recommendations concerning a sector specific storm water permit,  how to organize sectors, data of sites utilizing treatment systems and unable to meet proposed NALs and NELs, recommended NAL improvement options including what data should be requested, improving the current General Permit group monitoring structure, expanded definition of a QSD, and an off ramp or ways of returning to baseline status from a Tier 3.  Mr. Brosseau compiling the requested information would be a challenge given the current April 18, 2011 deadline for the Draft General Permit written comments.   In response, Mr. Hoppin conferred with his staff and agreed to extend the written comments deadline to 12:00 noon on Friday April 29, 2011.

Mr. Hoppin closed the hearing by expressing his appreciation for the respectful manner by which the comments were made and the seriousness with which the Board took the comments.  Mr. Hoppin also expressed that the comments presented had made it apparent to him and the entire Board just how much the Draft General Permit was in need of extensive revisions.

Jeanine Townsend

Clerk to the Board

State Water Resources Control Board

1001 I Street, 24th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

RE:     Comment on the 2011 Draft Industrial General Permit

 Dear State Water Board,

 After reviewing the 2011 Draft Industrial General Permit, I would like to make comment on one of the requirements contained in the proposed language.  In particular, I am concerned about the proposed qualifications for the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD).  The proposed permit states the following on page 16 of the Order:

b.   A QSD shall have one of the following registrations for certifications, and appropriate experience, as required for:

1. 1.     A California registered professional civil engineer;
2. 2.     A California registered professional geologist or engineering geologist;
3. 3.     A California registered landscape architect;
4. A professional hydrologist registered through the American Institute of Hydrology;

First, I would like to state that I have been working with the Industrial General Permit since it was first issued in 1992.  My experience and qualifications include the following:

• I graduated with a BS in Chemistry in 1986 from Azusa Pacific University;
• I have worked in California as an environmental consultant since 1986 and my specialty has been storm water compliance;
• Over the last 20 years, I have written dozens of industrial SWPPPs and have visited and inspected well over 100 different facilities throughout California and the United States;
• I have participated in various USEPA and RWQCB audits of industrial facilities and I have developed a close working relationship with the storm water staff of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board;
• I have trained hundreds of individuals on Industrial General Permit compliance including pollution prevention, monitoring, and reporting requirements;
• I have spoken at conferences and training events throughout the United States on storm water compliance;
• I write a monthly newsletter specifically on Industrial General Permit compliance that has a distribution of over 200 industrial facilities;
• I am a California Registered Environmental Assessor (REA-I No. 06085);
• I am a Certified Professional of Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC No. 0518);
• I am a current QSD / QSP under the Construction General Permit (No. 00022); and
• I am a current Trainer of Record for the Construction General Permit.

While I appreciate the State Water Board’s attempt to improve the permit and provide more accountability, I am opposed to the above-cited proposed permit language for the following reasons:

1. The listed registrations are far too restrictive and do not include other professional backgrounds that are equally qualified to write Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs).  There are many other professions capable of effectively managing storm water at industrial facilities, identifying potential pollutants and activities, determining appropriate best management practices, and specifying required analytical testing.  For example, professionals including, but not limited to, chemists, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, petroleum engineers, environmental scientists and consultants, industrial hygienists, water treatment operators, and industrial plant managers all certainly are equally qualified with a geologist, landscape engineer, or hydrologist to understand the Industrial General Permit, identify potential pollutants, determine appropriate best management practices, and develop an effective pollution prevention program.  Notwithstanding, even three of the professions in the list are only inclusive of California registrations.  I fail to see why a civil engineer registered in another State would not be equally qualified as one registered in California to prepare a SWPPP.  Neither the Fact Sheet nor the findings in the Order, provide rationale or justification for the narrowness of the list of professionals who qualify to be a QSD. 
2. With the exception of the civil engineer, the professions listed in the proposed Order do not inherently have the professional expertise to manage storm water at industrial facilities.  While I will not disagree that some of these professionals are perfectly capable of preparing an effective SWPPP; what is there in the professional background and training of a landscape architect that qualifies them to perform the necessary functions of writing a SWPPP?  How is a landscape architect or geologist qualified to evaluate industrial processes, activities, and pollutant sources to identify methods of source reduction, pollution prevention measures, and treatment control technologies?  Once again, the State seems to have arbitrarily compiled this list of professionals and has not provided adequate explanation of why these are included on the list while other equally qualified professions are not.
3. The proposed permit provides no opportunity for individuals to prove they are qualified by obtaining an alternative certification.  Effectively, you either are one of the listed professionals or you are not.  If you are not, but would like to prepare a SWPPP; you would have to go back to school, obtain an education and degree, and, finally, go through the process of obtaining a professional certification.  This would take years and thousands of dollars.  In contrast, the new Construction General Permit, although it too contained a list of professionals, also provided three feasible alternative options for individuals who were not an engineer or geologist; namely the CPESC, CPSWQ, and the NICET certification.   The proposed Industrial General Permit does not provide a similar option.

In closing, I would like to request the State Water Board to consider the following modifications to the proposed draft permit:

• Expand the list of professional qualifications to include other equally qualified backgrounds;
• Provide a QSD certification mechanism for individuals, like myself, who clearly have the professional background to prepare a SWPPP for an industrial facility; and
• Include the CPESC, CPSWQ, and NICET certifications in the list of professional qualifications.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.  I am confident that the State Water Board will find a broader QSD certification process that provides the desired level of accountability but yet is not arbitrarily narrow. 

Sincerely,

John M. Teravskis, REA-I, CPESC

315 W. Pine Street, Suite 8

Lodi, CA  95240

jteravskis@wgr-sw.com

WGR Southwest, Inc.

315 W. Pine Street, Suite 8

Lodi, CA  95240

www.wgr-sw.com

John Teravskis (209) 334-5363 ext. 202; jteravskis@wgr-sw.com

Greg Gearheart- Stormwater Section Supervisor

ggearheart@waterboards.ca.gov

916-341-5892

Leo Cosentini – Industrial Permit Lead

lcosentini@waterboards.ca.gov

916-341-5524

Laurel Warddrip – Industrial Permit Staff

lwarddrip@waterboards.ca.gov

916-341-5531

Don’t forget to submit official comments!

Here is what you need to do:

1. Read the draft proposed permit (or at least the articles posted on our Green Tea website) and understand the issues.
2. Copy and paste into an email or into letter on your company letterhead the issues presented in this blog into your own response to the State Water Board and customize as you see fit.
3. Send your OFFICIAL comments to the following:

 Written comments must be received by 12:00 noon on Monday, April 18, 2011 and addressed to:

Jeanine Townsend

Clerk to the Board

State Water Resources Control Board

1001 I Street, 24th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Comment letters may be submitted to the Clerk to the Board via email at commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov (if less than 15 megabytes in total size) or by fax at (916) 341-5620.

Please indicate in the subject line: “Comment Letter – Draft Industrial General Permit”.

1. Minimum BMPs – The proposed permit requires specific mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs). While most compliant sites, probably already perform many of these BMPs, in prescribing these, the State is taking away the ability of facilities to best determine a pollution prevention program that is customized to each individual facility. For example, forklifts and machinery must now be inspected weekly for leaks. Outdoor waste handling equipment or containers must be inspected and cleaned daily! While we understand the intent of the State to make sure industrial facilities have an effective pollution prevention program in place, these types and frequencies of mandated inspections are not necessarily needed at all facilities to maintain an effective program. They add to the existing overall regulatory burden, which has a direct impact on labor costs and other program expenses without necessarily making the facility’s pollution prevention program more effective. They also increase the potential for non-compliance; remember, every inspection must be documented and summarized in the annual report and performed by trained individuals. Read pages 22 – 26 of the Order for a full list of the proposed minimum BMPs.

2. Certifications Required – The proposed permit requires two new certifications; a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) can now only be prepared, revised, or modified by a QSD. The certification requirements for a QSD include meeting two criteria:

i. The QSD must be either a California professional civil engineer; a California registered professional geologist or engineering geologist; a California registered landscape architect; or a professional hydrologist registered through the American Institute of Hydrology.

ii. The QSD must successfully complete the State Water Board sponsored training course.

The second certification is for a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). Only a QSP can perform/oversee the storm water monitoring and facility inspection requirements. The QSP must also successfully complete a State Water Board sponsored training course.

3. Numeric Action Levels (NALs) – This is a new term for “benchmarks” which will now be used to evaluate your facility’s “risk” level. For the most part, the NALs follow the Federal Multi-Sector General Permit. A big change incorporated into this permit includes the potential for having variable NAL values for some common heavy metals as calculated using the hardness of the receiving water. Some facilities will see a lowering of already hard to attain benchmarks. For example, the copper benchmark will decrease from 0.06 to 0.03 mg/l for everyone and even as low as 0.01 mg/l for facilities that discharge to a receiving water with a hardness of 100 mg/l. The benchmark for zinc may also be reduced from the current benchmark of 0.117 mg/l to possibly as low as 0.04 mg/l.

4. Corrective Action Levels When analytical results meet any of three NAL corrective action triggers (triggers tied to USEPA benchmark values) during a reporting year, dischargers shall comply with prescribed corrective actions depending upon the number of reporting years the triggers have been met.

a. First year a trigger is met – Level 1 Corrective Actions – Operational source controls are required;

b. Second year a trigger is met – Level 2 Corrective actions – Structural and/or treatment controls are required; and

c. Third year a trigger is met – Level 3 Corrective Actions – Imposition of Numeric Effluent Limits.

5. Sampling Frequency and Rules – The sampling frequency is proposed to increase for every facility from two samples per year to sampling the first qualifying storm event of each calendar quarter. The proposed permit also seems to require make-up sampling by stating, “If no sample is collected in a quarter, then an additional storm event shall be sampled the following quarter until four qualifying storm events have been sampled in a reporting year.” If a facility is elevated to Level 2, it would be required to sample the first two qualifying events of each calendar quarter. And, if it has the misfortune of becoming a Level 3 facility, it will be required to sample every qualifying storm event (ouch!). A qualifying storm event (QSE) is redefined by the proposed permit to include a storm preceded by two consecutive days of dry weather that has produced a minimum of ¼ inch of rainfall as measured by an on-site rain gauge (yes, you must maintain your own rain gauge!); which occurs during scheduled facility operating hours. The visual inspections and sampling must occur within four hours after a qualified storm event has been determined. All discharge locations are required to be sampled. Please note that the NALs are daily averages of all discharge locations. There is no more sampling exemption for multiple discharge locations that are considered to be substantially similar. However, for such drainage areas, the permit allows up to four locations to be sampled individually and composited by the laboratory into a single sample for analysis.

6. Sampling Parameters – The main change here is that there is no longer a choice between Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Oil & Grease. Oil & Grease is now mandated. TOC may still be required if the pollutant assessment for the SWPPP indicates a source of TOC. The old “Table D” was replaced with Table 2 (p. 33 of the proposed Order), which appears to be very similar. The proposed permit requires pH and conductivity to be analyzed using field instruments. For field measurements, each point of discharge must be tested and cannot be composited.

7. New Inspections – There are several new inspections required by the proposed permit:

a. Quarterly Pollutant Source Inspections: Conduct a minimum of four quarterly visual inspections of all areas of industrial activity and associated potential pollutant sources. This is similar to the current ACSCE requirement, which may substitute for one of these new quarterly inspections. Implement any corrective actions and/or SWPPP revisions resulting from the inspection. Prepare a summary and status of the corrective actions and SWPPP revisions resulting from the quarterly inspections. Certify in Annual Report that each quarterly visual inspection was completed.

b. Pre-storm Inspections: Prior to anticipated storm events, dischargers shall visually observe all storm water drainage areas during operating hours to identify any spills, leaks, or uncontrolled pollutant sources and implement appropriate corrective actions.

c. Mandatory BMP Inspections: As stated above:

i. Daily inspect outdoor material/waste handling equipment or containers that can be contaminated by contact with industrial materials or wastes;

ii. Weekly inspect all outdoor areas associated with industrial activities, storm water discharge locations, drainage areas, conveyance systems, waste handling/disposal areas, and perimeter areas impacted by off-facility materials or storm water run-on to determine housekeeping needs; and

iii. Weekly inspect facility equipment and systems (such as forklifts, process machinery, storage containers, etc.) to prevent spills and leaks from occurring due to age, use, malfunction, or damage.

d. Monthly storm water storage and containment inspections: Check impoundments to detect for leaks and ensure maintenance of adequate freeboard.

8. Electronic Filing & Reporting Requirements: The proposed permit language requires permittees to file Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) into SMARTS; which is the State Water Board’s online system and replaces the old NOI procedure. Prior to filing PRDs, the Legally Responsible Person (LRP) for each facility will need to establish an account on SMARTS and designate approved data submitters. Annual reports, due on July 15, will be only accepted on the SMARTS system. All analytical results for both field and laboratory testing will be required to be submitted onto SMARTS within 30 days of obtaining the results. NAL or NEL exceedance reports will be required to be uploaded onto SMARTS within 30 days of the exceedance.

9. No More Group Monitoring: The group monitoring option is not included in the proposed permit. Those who participated in group monitoring (many auto dismantlers and trucking companies) will now need to develop their own SWPPP and perform their own monitoring.

10. Sampling and Analysis Reduction Option: The proposed permit allows for a sampling and analysis reduction option for all non-Level 3 dischargers. To qualify for the reductions the discharger must have sampled ten consecutive quarters in which qualifying storm events occurred and NALs were not exceeded. The discharger must also have been in full compliance with all other aspects of the permit.