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 1991Board adopted first industrial general permit 1997Board adopted second industrial general permit 2003Board hearing on 1 st draft of industrial general permit 2005Board hearing on the 2 nd draft permit 2005Board convened a Blue Ribbon Panel of experts 2006Blue Ribbon Panel of experts completed report on Numeric Effluent Limits Board delayed development of 3 rd draft permit (SMARTS, CGP) 2011Board hearing of 3 rd draft permit 2012Board hearing of 4 th draft permit 2013August 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 1 st – December 31 st ) and twice in second half of year (January 1 st – June 30 th )  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 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 Permit Renewal 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?

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.  3 rd 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  3 rd Party groups have the largest, most organized voice

Questions? Contact me with questions or to get involved at: Gerald R. Montgomery – Montgomery & Associates, Inc.