Workshop I Best Practices in St Best Practices in Storm W orm - - PDF document
Workshop I Best Practices in St Best Practices in Storm W orm Water r Compliance in Ohio in Light of the Compliance in Ohio in Light of the Rene newal of Ohio EP l of Ohio EPA's Industrial A's Industrial Storm W St orm Water General P
Best Practices in St Best Practices in Storm W
r Compliance in Ohio in Light of the Compliance in Ohio in Light of the Rene newal of Ohio EP l of Ohio EPA's Industrial A's Industrial St Storm W
r General Permit rmit
Thur Thursda sday, July 20, 20 , July 20, 2017 10:30 a.m. t :30 a.m. to Noon Noon
Biographical Information
Harry Kallipolitis Manager, 401 Water Quality Certification, Isolated Wetland and Storm Water Section Division of Surface Water, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, OH 43216-1049 (614) 644-2146 harry.kallipolitis@epa.ohio.gov Harry Kallipolitis is Ohio EPA’s Storm Water and 401 Water Quality Certification Manager. Prior to this position, Harry worked as the Central District Office Storm Water Coordinator for Ohio EPA where he was integral to the development of the storm water program from the inception back in the early 90’s. Inherent in the position, Mr. Kallipolitis was responsible for the development, implementation, and
this work in his current position. In addition, Harry worked with local municipalities, counties, and sister agencies to develop and implement local storm water regulations. Harry brings with him over 26 years of field experience giving him a unique perspective in the continued development and implementation of the Storm Water and 401 Programs. Prior to his work with Ohio EPA, Harry worked with Ohio Department
industries in Ohio. Timothy W. Ling, P.E., Environmental Engineer, Plaskolite, LLC. P.O. Box 1497, Columbus, OH 43216-1497 (614) 294-3281 tim.ling@plaskolite.com
manufacturer of continuously processed acrylic sheet. Mr. Ling is responsible for Plaskolite’s environmental compliance at its 6 manufacturing facilities in Ohio, California, Texas, Mississippi, and
businesses, and now as in-house environmental manager. He has spoken and written on a wide range
Florida Institute of Technology (1989), and a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Notre Dame (1991). He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the states of Ohio and Florida.
70 W. Columbus St., Pickerington, OH 43147 614-837-4750 curt@spenceenv.com
Spence Environmental Consulting, Inc. was founded in 1995 and provides a wide range of environmental consulting services including compliance, due diligence, BUSTR corrective action, RCRA closure, remedial design and geotechnical engineering services. Mr. Spence was a member of the industry coalition that negotiated the terms and conditions of the current industrial NPDES storm water general permit with the Ohio EPA. He has recently published several articles in Ohio trade association newsletters, performed seminars and provided training to several Ohio companies on this topic. Mr. Spence has also authored numerous storm water pollution prevention plans for industrial sites in Ohio.
(1987) and a Master of Science degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Cincinnati (1989). He is a registered professional engineer in Ohio.
1
Timothy W. Ling, P.E. Environmental Engineer Plaskolite, LLC.
President Spence Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Storm Water Compliance in Ohio
In Light of the Renewal of Ohio EPA’s Industrial Storm Water General Permit
2
Topics
How’s Ohio's storm water quality? Survival tips The FUTURE…
3
4
BM = 750 ug/L 2132 Samples (ND to 490,000 ug/L) 767 > BM (36.0%) Median = 336.3 ug/L
DL Range Frequency) Concentration (ug/L)
Aluminum
5
BM = 3.8–51.7 ug/L 629 Samples (ND to 20,000 ug/L) 247 > Max. BM (39.3%) 540 > Min. BM (85.9%) Median = 27.7 ug/L
DL Range
Copper
Frequency) Concentration (ug/L)
6
BM = 210 to 715 ug/L 989 Samples (ND to 2300 ug/L) 15 > Max. BM (1.7%) 62 > Min. BM (6.9%) Median = 11.3 ug/L
DL Range
Lead
Frequency) Concentration (ug/L)
7
BM = 40–390 ug/L 2591 Samples (ND to 219,000 ug/L) 485 > Max. BM (18.7%) 1755 > Min. BM (67.7%) Median = 83.5 ug/L
DL Range
Zinc
Frequency) Concentration (ug/L)
8
BM = 120 mg/L 785 Samples (ND to 4000 mg/L) 138 > BM (17.6%) Median = 41.3 mg/L
DL Range
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Frequency) Concentration (mg/L)
9
BM = 0.68 mg/L 1404 Samples (ND to 2768 mg/L) 640 > BM (45.6%) Median = 0.61 mg/L
DL Range
Nitrite plus Nitrate
Frequency) Concentration (mg/L)
10
BM = 100 mg/L 3209 Samples (ND to 9957 mg/L) 469 > BM (14.6%) Median = 11.0 mg/L
DL Range
Total Suspended Solids
Frequency) Concentration (mg/L)
11
Survival Tip: No Exposure Certification (NEC)
NEC = No storm water NPDES permit “All industrial materials & activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent exposure to rain … and/or runoff” Renew NEC every 5 years
12
Survival Tip: Benchmarks
It’s ALL about the benchmarks Exceedance not permit violation…BUT… not correcting IS permit violation Natural background levels only, but neighbor run-on addressed
13
Survival Tip: Inspections
Inspections from complaints Ohio EPA inspection issues:
14
Survival Tips
Apply for timely coverage (90 days
Update SWPPP to meet new permit requirements (e.g., Part 5.0) Review benchmark data & control measures - changes needed?
15
Survival Tips
Identify all outfalls in your SWPPP, including “substantially identical
Start benchmark sampling in 2017 versus waiting until Year 3 (2019)
16
Survival Tips
Review facility inspection forms (quarterly, monthly, weekly?) & update, as needed. Continue quarterly visual assessments Perform & document annual employee training
17
Survival Tips: Corrective Action
Triggers for Corrective Actions:
benchmark limit
18
Survival Tips: Corrective Action
Corrective Actions:
within 24 hours
days & document corrective action in SWPPP
19
I Did All That Stuff BUT …
“I still don’t meet the benchmarks!” Additional BMPs (e.g., treatment) Start JUSTIFYING…
20
The Future? California…
General Permit effective July 1, 2015 2 samples every 6 months Benchmarks = NAL
21
YEAR 1 2 3
22
California General Permit
50% “flunked” => Level 1 Exceedance Response Action plan Standards for treatment BMPs Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner (QISP)
23
California General Permit
25-50% failure by June 2017 = Level 2 “Perpetual exceedance (Level 2)”
24
California Storm Water TMDLs
July 1, 2016 proposal mandate Proposed TMDLs @ Long Beach Harbor
25
Zinc By The Numbers
OH benchmark = 0.04 - 0.39 mg/l CA TMDL = 0.0856 mg/l 2015 USEPA MSGP benchmarks
USEPA freshwater std. = 0.12 mg/l
26
Benchmark = 0.04 - 0.39 mg/l
OH aquatic OMZM/A = 0.39 mg/l OH aquatic IMZM = 0.78 mg/l Ohio River HH OMZA = 9.1 mg/l Columbus water = 0.219–0.902 mg/l Secondary MCL = 5 mg/l
27
YEAR 1 2 3 4
28
The Future…
Start planning for OHR000007 in 2022 In light of USEPA MSGP circa 2020 And another thing…
29
2016 USEPA-Enviro Settlement
3-Tiers of corrective measures
single exceedance
treatment controls
USEPA to fund storm water study
30
USEPA Storm Water Study
Monitoring “improvements” Numeric retention (flow) standards “High-priority” industries Add BAT/BMP to specific sectors Discharges to impaired waters
31
The Future…
BMPs Sample/Corrective Action New, lower benchmarks [for ALL]? Benchmarks today…NELs tomorrow TMDL and/or WQL (Part 6.2.4)
32
The Future…
Increased sampling “Perpetual” non-compliance Tougher BMPs (e.g., treatment) Impacts of “sue-and-settle”
33
Tip Of The Day …
OHIO’S STORM WATER GENERAL PERMIT IS …
34
Final Thoughts
“Menu” with a bite… Increased liability to enforcement The future promises to be BRUTAL…
35
Final Thoughts
Look at your benchmark data & decide if work is needed Be prepared to spend money as the fix may not be easy or cheap Make sure your SWPPP is updated & implemented
36
Final Thoughts
Elevated or lack of benchmark data likely results in inspections Ohio EPA does not appear to target facilities without permits Compliance not getting easier
37
Burning Questions
NPDES Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal (OHR000006)
2017 Annual Environmental Permitting Conference
Industrial Storm Water
11 Categories of Industrial Activity
http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swsectors.cfm
i. Facilities with Effluent Limitations for SW ii. Manufacturing
Drilling
Storage or Disposal Facilities v. Industrial Waste Landfills
with Vehicle Maintenance
MGD) x. Construction Activity
Check below to determine if you need coverage: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/permits/IndustrialStormWater_Fi nal_GP_AppD_dec11.pdf
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
– Issuance Date: May 8, 2017 – Effective Date: June 1, 2017 – Expiration Date: May 31, 2022
http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/permits/GP_IndustrialStormWater.aspx
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Parts 1.3.1, 1.4.1 and 1.5. This permit will require NOI, NOT and NOE to be submitted electronically using Ohio EPA’s eBusiness Center
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Language added which allows reduction of required frequency for routine facility inspections and quarterly visual assessments for facilities that are recognized under the Gold and Platinum levels by Ohio EPA’s Encouraging Environmental Excellence (E3) Program. http://epa.ohio.gov/ocapp/ohioe3.aspx
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
U.S. EPA’s 2015 federal MSGP consolidated the comprehensive site inspection and routine facility inspection procedures into
(Comprehensive Site Inspections) has been removed.
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Language was added to clarify that for monitoring purposes, an outfall can include a discrete conveyance (i.e., pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel or conduit) or a location where sheet flow leaves a facility’s property.
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
The permit provides permittees the first 3 years of their permit coverage to complete benchmark monitoring. Language has been added to clarify permittees
monitoring to the extent of remaining monitoring periods available before permit expires.
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Language was added to provide permittees that may exceed a benchmark, due to a neighboring facility’s storm water run‐on, a procedure to document and account for this situation. Such sampling results are to be documented within eDMR’s comment section.
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Language was added to allow a facility to default to a different benchmark value if a parameter’s water quality standard is less restrictive than the permit’s benchmark value.
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Language was added that, in accordance with Part 2, determined pollutant concentrations from your facility’s structures (roofs, walls, fencing, etc.) may be considered to determine if it is technologically available and economically practical and achievable in light of best industry practice to implement additional control measures or not, when a benchmark has been exceeded.
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
The annual report has been modified to be consistent with U.S. EPA’s 2015 MSGP annual report form. Consistent with OHR000005, the annual report is to be completed on an annual basis and maintained with the SWPPP and only submitted if requested by Ohio EPA.
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Industrial Storm Water General Permit Renewal
Transportation and Appendix D, Sector Q
Allows coverage for regulated marinas which will eliminate need for current Marina Storm Water general permit which expires January 21, 2018.
Southeast District Office (SEDO) Kerry Neil 740‐ 380‐5218 Alex Delvalle 740‐380‐5227 Southwest District Office (SWDO) Michelle Flanagan 937‐ 285‐6440 Northwest District Office (NWDO) Lynette Hablitzel 419‐ 373‐3009 Pat Tebbe 419‐ 373‐3016 Northeast District Office (NEDO) Dan Bogoevski 330‐ 963‐1145 Molly Sunkle 330‐963‐1215 Chris Moody 330‐963‐1118 Laura Barrett 330‐963‐1136 Central District Office (CDO) Greg Sanders 614‐728‐3851 Marshall Cooper 614‐ 728‐3844
Ohio EPA Storm Water Contacts
Central Office Harry Kallipolitis 614‐ 644‐2146 Jason Fyffe 614‐ 728‐1793 Michael Joseph 614‐ 752‐0782 Anthony Robinson 614‐ 728‐3392
SEDO NEDO CDO SWDO NWDO
Storm Water Program Web Page: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/storm/index.as px To contact by email: First Name.Last Name@epa.ohio.gov
9/1/2016 Stormwater Forecast: Prepare for More Aggressive Benchmark Monitoring and Corrective Action Requirements under the Next Proposed MSGP:… http://www.bdlaw.com/news1953.html 1/4
Related Practices Water Supply and Quality Land Use Environmental
Stormwater Forecast: Prepare for More Aggressive Benchmark Monitoring and Corrective Action Requirements under the Next Proposed MSGP
Authors: Stephen M. Richmond and Virginie
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., August 29, 2016 Click here for a PDF version of this news alert. EPA is expected to propose a revised system of benchmark monitoring and corrective action requirements to replace those of the current 2015 MultiSector General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activities (“MSGP”). EPA has just entered into a settlement agreement with environmental groups that challenged EPA’s issuance of the 2015 MSGP, under which EPA has agreed to propose a number of new conditions for incorporation into the next version of the permit. The settlement agreement has no effect on the terms and conditions of the current 2015 MSGP, which remains in place until June 2020, however, facilities subject to benchmark monitoring should take note of the changes expected to be proposed, particularly for those facilities consistently facing benchmark exceedances. Under the current permit, benchmark exceedances do not on their own result in non compliance, but can trigger the need for enhanced stormwater management practices. Benchmark Monitoring The settlement agreement covers several stormwater management issues but places a strong emphasis on benchmark monitoring. EPA has agreed to both study the effectiveness
provisions and to propose a tiered set of corrective action measures. The proposed tiered system’s structure builds on sample results from yeartoyear, and its increasingly sophisticated action requirements will translate
9/1/2016 Stormwater Forecast: Prepare for More Aggressive Benchmark Monitoring and Corrective Action Requirements under the Next Proposed MSGP:… http://www.bdlaw.com/news1953.html 2/4
into a need to make greater capital expenditures and to consult more regularly with professional engineers. We summarize the proposed tiers in the attached table, with a comparison point to the 2015 MSGP’s requirements in the first row of the chart. Eligibility Under MSGP EPA has also agreed to propose a provision extending the discharge authorization date from 30 to 60 days for new dischargers (i.e., facilities not covered under the 2015 MSGP) that submit an NOI while subject to a pending stormwater enforcement action by EPA, a state, or a citizen group, including any facility that has received a citizen group’s Notice of Intent to Sue. This means that EPA would be alerted of alleged stormwater violations at the time of a facility’s application for permit coverage and may take the opportunity to impose additional stormwater control requirements. EPA will also propose that facilities with pavement coated with coal tar sealant will not be eligible for permit coverage under the
discharge of PAHs from the coal tar sealant before seeking permit coverage, which would likely require repaving. Other Provisions In addition, EPA also agreed to the following: Fund a study by the National Resource Council to evaluate and provide recommendations on: Suggested improvements to the current MSGP’s benchmark monitoring requirements; Feasibility of numeric retention standards; and Identification of the highest priority industrial facilities or industrial sectors to consider for more stringent discharge requirements. Revise EPA’s sectorspecific fact sheets to incorporate emerging stormwater control measures that reflect industry practices for Best Available Technology
9/1/2016 Stormwater Forecast: Prepare for More Aggressive Benchmark Monitoring and Corrective Action Requirements under the Next Proposed MSGP:… http://www.bdlaw.com/news1953.html 3/4
(“BAT”) and Best Control Technology (“BCT”). Propose in the next MSGP to extend the eligibility criterion for facilities discharging to federal CERCLA sites to all EPA Regions. Propose in the next MSGP annual monitoring requirements for stormwater discharging to impaired waters without a TMDL. While the proposed MSGP will not be issued for at least three years, facilities subject to the 2015 MSGP should be aware that the study recommendations together with the conceptual benchmark and eligibility provisions described above could significantly change facilities’ response obligations to monitoring and sampling requirements under the permitting
facilities subject to the permitting program, or even result in a shift in focus to specific “high priority” industrial sectors. Facilities currently struggling to meet benchmark thresholds may want to start the planning process to consider the steps that can be taken to reduce benchmark exceedances. If EPA ultimately adopts the proposed conditions, facilities with consistently high benchmark exceedances may expose themselves to increased federal or citizen group oversight. For questions involving EPA’s MSGP, please contact the authors. Overview News Presentations Media Contact
9/1/2016 Stormwater Forecast: Prepare for More Aggressive Benchmark Monitoring and Corrective Action Requirements under the Next Proposed MSGP:… http://www.bdlaw.com/news1953.html 4/4
Attorney Contacts Stephen M. Richmond (Boston) Virginie K. Roveillo (Boston)
Proposed Benchmark Monitoring Implementation Tiers for Next MSGP
1
Implementation Action Tiers Action Trigger Action Required Exception(s) 2015 MSGP Average of 4 quarterly sampling results > benchmark Sum of less than 4 quarterly sample results > 4 x benchmark Review SWPPP to determine if modifications are necessary Immediately take reasonable steps necessary to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution is installed and made operational Complete additional actions within 14 days, or 45 days if 14‐day window is infeasible. If run‐on to facility causes exceedance, review/ revise SWPPP and notify operators of contributing run‐on to abate their pollutant contribution Exceedance is solely attributable to natural background sources No further pollutant reductions are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practice Tier 1 Annual average > benchmark Single sample result > 4 x benchmark Immediately review selection, design, installation, and implementation of control measures to determine whether modifications are required Implement modifications within 14 days, or no later than 45 days if 14‐day window infeasible Exceedance is solely attributable to natural background sources EPA agreement that exceedances is solely attributable run‐on sources Tier 2 2 consecutive annual averages each > benchmark 2 sample results w/in a 2‐year period each > 4 x benchmark Single sample result > 8 x benchmark Implement all feasible control measures for applicable sector Implement controls within 14 days, or no later than 45 days if 14‐day window infeasible Exceedance is solely attributable to natural background sources EPA agreement that exceedances is solely attributable run‐on sources If single sample result (8 x benchmark) constituted an aberration:
prevent reoccurrence
qualifying rain event to confirm
available on time per parameter per
Proposed Benchmark Monitoring Implementation Tiers for Next MSGP
2
Implementation Action Tiers Action Trigger Action Required Exception(s) Tier 3 3 consecutive annual averages each > benchmark 3 sampling results w/in a 3‐year period each > 4 x benchmark 2 sampling results w/in a 3‐year period each > 8 x benchmark 4 consecutive samples > benchmark and the average > 2 x benchmark Install structural source controls (e.g., berms, secondary containment, etc.) and/or treatment controls (e.g., oil‐water separators, infiltration structures, etc.), with assistance from a professional engineer or geologist Install controls within 30 days, or no later than 90 days if 30‐day window is infeasible Controls must be installed at all substantially identical outfalls Exceedance is solely attributable to natural background sources EPA agreement that exceedances is solely attributable run‐on sources Facility demonstrates to EPA within 30 days that the discharge does not result in the exceedance of water quality standards, and EPA approves
publicly available. N/A Sample results for a parameter continue to exceed benchmark after structural source or treatment controls are installed EPA may require facility to apply for an individual NPDES permit N/A Beveridge & Diamond’s 100 lawyers – including 50 litigators – concentrate their practice on environmental, sustainability, and natural resources law, litigation, and dispute resolution. Widely recognized as one of the premier environmental law and litigation firms in the U.S., the Firm helps clients in diverse industry sectors resolve critical environmental and sustainability issues relating to their facilities, products, and operations around the world. Learn more at www.bdlaw.com.