April 2014 - A presentation summarizing changes in stormwater permits, case studies providing innovative ways to manage stormwater at industrial properties, and a summary of enforcement activities.
http://www.estormwater.com/sws-swema-present-industrial-stormwater-discharges-regulatory-developments-and-technical-considerati
3. Overview
New California Industrial General
Permit Highlights
Draft Multi-Sector General Permit
Highlights
Case Study #1 - Naturally Occurring
Metals in Stormwater Discharges
(MA)
Case Study #2 - Infiltration to
Eliminate MSGP Requirements (MA)
Case Study #3 - Source Tracking
(CA)
Regulatory Developments/Trends
3
4. California Industrial General
Permit
Adopted April 2014
Starts July 2015
Numeric Action Levels (NALs)
Exceedance Response Actions (ERAs)
Minimum BMPs
Sampling requirements
4
5. Draft Multi Sector General Permit
Who is affected? Facilities operating within the 29 regulated
industrial sectors listed in the 2008 MSGP and located where the
EPA is the NPDES permitting authority.
Streamlining the SWPPP and eliminating generic language
Public accessibility to the SWPPP
Reduced requirements for inspections
Specific deadlines for taking corrective actions
Electronic submission for the NOI, NOT,
annual report and monitoring reports
5
6. Draft Multi Sector General Permit
6
Requirement for pavement wash water discharges to be treated
by control measures
Additional notification for discharges to Federal Superfund Sites
Inclusion of airport deicing effluent limitation guideline
Inclusion of saltwater benchmark
values for metals and
Additional clarity for technology
based effluent limits
7. Case Study #1 - Naturally Occurring
Metals in Stormwater Discharges
Project Location: Lakeville, Massachusetts
Industrial Activity: Concrete Ready Mix
MSGP Sector: E
Stormwater Contaminants: pH, TSS, metals including iron
7
Client and their attorney requested
assistance with an Administrative
Consent Order with Penalty for
multiple violations including
stormwater management and illicit
discharges to a natural resource.
8. Case Study #1 - Naturally Occurring
Metals in Stormwater Discharges
Pollutant source evaluation
Eliminated pollutant sources
but still had an iron problem
Identified other discharges
during extended dry periods
Hydrogeological evaluation
Results
8
9. Case Study #2 - Infiltration to
Eliminate MSGP Requirements
Project Location: Everett, Massachusetts
Industrial Activity: Metal Collection Facility
MSGP Sector: N
Stormwater Contaminants: metals, petroleum, PCBs,
solvents, TSS
9
Client and their attorney requested
assistance with a Settlement
Agreement with the Conservation
Law Foundation (CLF) relative to
stormwater management
Settlement Agreement outlined a
Performance Design Standard
10. Case Study #2 - Infiltration to
Eliminate MSGP Requirements
Preconstruction activities identified historical
contamination from metals scrapping/recylcing and coal
gasification wastes
Hydrogeological studies were necessary
An alternatives analysis was performed and a design
was prepared.
10
The design was accepted by the CLF
and construction activities were
implemented
A soil management plan and Licensed
Site Professional were needed to
manage contaminated soil.
11. Case Study #2 - Infiltration to
Eliminate MSGP Requirements
Benefits
– Low maintenance
– Moderate costs mostly due to managing contaminated
soil and the impacts to the overall design
– No discharges to surface water and therefore no potential
for exceedances of water quality standards
– No MSGP reporting requirements
– Owner experienced more customer traffic after
improvements
11
12. Case Study #3 - Copper Source
Tracking
Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet
Background on the Problem
Investigation
BMPs
Next Steps
Applications to new CA IGP
12
13. Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet
aka “Mothball Fleet” or
“Ghost Ships”
Benicia, CA
Operated by US DOT
Maritime Administration
(MARAD)
Retention and non-
retention vessels (USCG,
Navy, MARAD)
13
14. Background
54 vessels
Water quality concern (metals)
in discharges to Suisun Bay
Site specific target
concentrations
14
15. Exceedance
Mt. Washington
November 2012 sampling
event
Total Copper 3,000 ug/L
Dissolved Copper 2,600 ug/L
15
19. Results
19 surfaces screened
non-detect to 10,000
ppm
75,000 ppm on deck
leading to scupper
840,000 ppm on
SALM
19
20. Single Anchor Leg Mooring
(SALM)
Underwater anchor
for fueling operations
Mt. Washington was
off-shore fuel tanker
SALM is 55’ by 140’
Mt. Washington is
100’ by 700’
20
Thanks Ryan. I want to provide a quick summary of the proposed changes to the MSGP prior to discussing the 2 case studies applicable to the MSGP.
The Draft MSGP was prepared by EPA for 29 industrial sectors where EPA is the permitting authority including:
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Idaho, and New Mexico,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other U.S. territories with the exception of the Virgin Islands,
facilities operated by the federal government in four states including Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and Washington,
most Indian Country lands, and
a couple of other designated activities in specific states (e.g., oil and gas activities in Texas and Oklahoma)
The draft MSGP provisions are largely the same as the 2008 provisions. The proposed changes were generally made to improve permit clarity, address errors identified in the 2008 MSGP, and make the permit more streamlined. The major highlights of the proposed MSGP include: (read slide)
A couple of 2013 MSGP milestones include the following:
The draft permit was issued on September 27, 2013 for public comment
The public comment period was extended through December 26, 2013 and
EPA expects to issue the final MSGP by fall 2014.
For those who were covered under the 2008 permit, coverage is administratively continued until EPA issues the new permit. EPA cited the government shutdown, the extension to the public comment period, the number of comments received, and the breadth and scope of some of the comments as the reasons for the extra delay. EPA also re-issued the memo of “no action assurance” for new facilities indicating that enforcement against new facilities which begin operating without permit coverage, will not occur until the final MSGP is promulgated.
To provide some background on the ACOP, USEPA and MassDEP implemented an enforcement initiative between 2004 and 2008 that involved the audit and inspection of concrete and aggregate facilities. Several facilities were found in violation of multiple regulatory requirements including illicit discharges to surface water from industrial operations and improper stormwater controls. Significant fines were levied and EPA and MassDEP required these facilities to implement corrective actions within very specific deadlines.
DON’T READ THIS SLIDE….READ THE FOLLOWING INSTEAD
Pollutant sources included: discharges from washing concrete mixer trucks, process water from leaking pipes, unpaved roadways, miscellaneous leaks and spills of oil and grease from mixer trucks, uncontrolled stormwater runoff from an adjacent sand and gravel pit that flooded the subject property, and not maintaining stormwater controls.
Eliminated sources by designing and installing a concrete washing station that recycles water and materials, repaired facility piping, developed BMPs and erosion controls for unpaved roads, established a BMP for responding to minor spills and leaks from mixer trucks, designed and installed berms along the property boundary to prevent runoff from the sand and gravel pit, and dredged the existing stormwater sedimentation basin. These corrective actions (and others not related to stormwater pollutant sources) were mandatory to address multiple regulatory violations that were cited in the ACOP.
After these sources were controlled or eliminated, only iron exceeded the benchmark value in the discharge from the sedimentation basin. For reference, total iron concentrations prior to eliminating the potential sources ranged from 2.5 to 5 mg/L and the Sector E Benchmark value for iron is 1 mg/L. Total iron concentrations in the discharge after eliminating the potential sources ranged from 1.2 to 2.7 mg/L over the course of 6 sampling events. 3 of these sampling events were conducted during significant rain events and 3 were collected during dry periods when discharges were observed.
A limited hydrogeological evaluation was conducted that included the installation of temporary monitoring wells, analytical sampling, groundwater elevation monitoring and water elevation monitoring in the sedimentation basin and wetland.
The results of the hydrogeological evaluation indicated that the sedimentation basin was in contact with groundwater and that groundwater had elevated concentrations of total iron.
Upon discussions with USEPA and MassDEP, no other alternatives were identified for managing stormwater at the property and the existing stormwater controls and BMPs would be sufficient to eliminate the need for Benchmark Monitoring Requirements.
READ SLIDE FIRST THAN SAY THIS…..
The resulting Performance Design Standard required a stormwater management system that would prevent runoff associated with a 100-year rainfall event (7 inches in 24 hours).
Preconstruction activities included subsurface investigations to evaluate soil conditions relative to infiltration needs. During these investigations, contamination from existing operations at the property and coal gasification wastes were identified on a portion of the property where the stormwater management system was going to be located.
The presence of contamination required further investigation under the state environmental programs but it also created a need to further assess the property to identify a suitable location for the stormwater management system. Significant limitations were identified during the supplemental investigation which included shallow groundwater elevations, potential mounding because of the presence of deeper silts and peat, the effects of a mound from an infiltration system on the fate and transport of contamination at the property, and heavy vehicle traffic across the property. These limitations were significant such that an alternatives analysis was needed.
The alternatives analysis included stormwater treatment technologies as well as surface water discharge (under MSGP) and infiltration. The resulting design included a subsurface infiltration system located in 2 areas of the property and incorporated pre-treatment sediment removal systems and an engineered geo-grid system to allow heavy truck loading over the system. In addition, the site was re-graded to eliminate the potential for runoff from the property. The resulting design evaluated mounding relative to the fate and transport of contamination at the property and found that there was little to no adverse effect because the system was developed in 2 areas of the property where limited to no contamination was identified. The area with limited contamination was remediated prior to system construction under the direction of a Licensed Site Professional.
Ultimately the design was accepted by the Conservation Law Foundation and construction activities were implemented and completed in 2012.
To assist with compliance and maintenance of the stormwater infiltration system, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan was prepared and the employees were trained with regard to maintenance and monitoring requirements.
That concludes the case studies associated with the MSGP. I will now turn it over to Ryan to discuss the 3rd case study that provides information relative to the California Industrial General Permit…..Ryan.