Richards Margaret Lathrop Gage McCart Susan SCS Engineers Common NPDES Mistakes and the Importance of Good Data MECC Kansas City May 11-13 Overland Park

1. Margaret H. Richards (Lathrop & Gage LLP)
Susan L. McCart, P.E., P.G. (SCS Engineers)
Common NPDES Mistakes and the Importance
of Good Data

2. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Clean Water Act established NPDES permitting program regulating
discharges of pollutants into waters of the US
 Pollutant defined broadly and includes any type of industrial,
municipal, or agricultural waste (including heat) discharged into
water
 Two Basic NPDES Permits:
o Individual (permit tailored to an individual facility)
o General (permit tailored to cover multiple facilities in a
specific category of discharges, sludge use, or disposal
practices)
Overview of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
2

3. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Permits Require Reporting and Monitoring
 Companies need to establish plans for compliance such as SWPPP,
SPCC, and FRP
 Potential criminal & civil liability for violations
Overview of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
3

4. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
Common Point Source Discharges of Pollutants
4

5. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Failure to provide:
o industry or municipality specific information;
o topographic map of the area around the discharge;
o the correct long-term average and daily maximum values.
 Failure to submit the effluent data necessary to characterize the facility.
 Reporting quantified values below known detection limits, and using
misplaced decimal points or incorrect concentration units.
 In most cases, the errors and omissions in the application are
inadvertent because of the length and complexity of the form. When
mistakes are detected they must be corrected.
Common Mistakes in Permit Applications
5

6. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
Common Compliance Issues
Factors to Consider – New or Modifying Permits,
Making Changes Following a Violation
Various Examples
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
6

7. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
Exceedances
 Outdated SWPPP, SPCC Plan, FRP; Site Map not current
 Incomplete and/or insufficient documentation of personnel training
 Failure to retain monitoring and inspection records
 Routine visual inspections (typically required by general permits and/or
SWPPP) either not performed or insufficient documentation
 No documentation of meter calibration prior to collecting measurements (eg.
pH meter)
 Insufficient recording/documentation of rain gauge data (if required)
Common Compliance Issues
7

8. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Sample Locations
 Sample Frequency and Timing of Sample Collection
 Sampling Procedures
 Naturally Occurring Parameters
 BMPs and Housekeeping
Factors to Consider – New/Modified Permits
Making Changes Following a Violation
8

9. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Example Facility in Iowa
– Sampling location required the sampler to wade into an
impoundment or use a sampling rod.
– TSS exceedance
– Determined the sampler did not use the sampling rod, and
collected the “cloud” from his foot step in the impoundment.
– With explanation, IDNR allowed re-sampling.
– The mistake cost the client several thousand dollars in
consultant fees, at least one trip to meet with IDNR, and
multiple conference calls with in-house legal counsel,
consultants, facility, and corporate staff.
Sample Locations
9

10. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Sample Locations
Sample Frequency and Timing of Sample Collection
– How many times per year
– If possible, in spring after vegetation is established
– During rain events,
after rain events, quarterly,
annually
 Sampling Procedures
 Naturally Occurring Parameters
 BMPs and Housekeeping
Factors to Consider – New/Modified Permits
10

11. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
Sample Frequency
11
 A client complained about having to run out of the facility during
every rain fall event to catch a sample.
 We reviewed their permit and it was not clear that procedure was
required. We contacted the state to clarify what they expected for
discharge sampling.
 State required a sample to be collected within the first 30 minutes
of discharge, but it was not necessary to collect a sample in the
rain.
 Informed our client –
the look on his face was pretty funny!

12. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Sample Locations
 Sample Frequency and Timing of Sample Collection
Sampling Procedures
– Grab vs Composite
– Equipment
– Filtered or Unfiltered
– During or after rain events*
– Sample port or discharge pipe
– Manual or Automated
 Naturally Occurring Parameters
 BMPs and Housekeeping
Factors to Consider – New/Modified Permits
12

13. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P13
Sampling Procedures

14. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Sample Locations
 Sample Frequency and Timing of Sample Collection
 Sampling Procedures
Naturally Occurring Parameters
 BMPs and Housekeeping
Factors to Consider – New/Modified Permits
14

15. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Naturally occurring background metals are present in Midwest soil
(supported by literature)
 Slightly acidic storm water can leach metal bearing minerals from
the soil
 Un-vegetated soil mobilized in storm water (suspended or
dissolved) can cause exceedances for a variety of metals
Even if TSS is below laboratory detection limits,
there still may be enough metals dissolved from
native soils alone to exceed storm water
benchmarks
 Perform a Natural Background Pollutant Source Demonstration
Naturally Occurring Parameters
15

16. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Sample Locations
 Sample Frequency and Timing of Sample Collection
 Sampling Procedures
 Naturally Occurring Parameters
BMPs and Housekeeping
Factors to Consider – New/Modified Permits
16

17. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Vegetate bare soil
 Control traffic routes, eliminate tracking
 Maintain conveyance systems (clean filters, pipes)
 Install directional berms, perimeter berms
 Good housekeeping
(increase sweeping frequency,
cover bins/work product)
 Follow your SWPPP!!
 Document your activities
BMPs and Housekeeping
17

18. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P18

19. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
Storm Water Discharge & Sampling Location at a
Construction Yard/Equipment Maintenance Facility
19
TSS was an issue from
rolling stock over
paved surfaces.
Installed rock and
straw wattles at the
pipe.

20. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
Storm Water Discharge and Sampling Location
from a Wood Waste Facility
20
 COD was very elevated and difficult to control.
 Installed straw bales, straw wattles, a small retention pond, and a
sand filter. None were effective.
 Eventually, eliminated discharge point and routed storm water to an
infiltration/retention pond.
 Updated SWPPP
 Currently expanding the holding capacities of the existing ponds to
get facility to zero discharge.

21. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
Storm Water Discharge and Sampling Location
from a Wood Waste Facility
21

22. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Discharge flows along
gravel ditch from clear
water pit to the
discharge area. Note the
silt fence does not
completely span the
channel. Also had issues
with cement dust in the
gravel channel.
Recommended
construction of a
sediment bay/basin and
installing a discharge
pipe for a fixed
outfall/sampling port at
the end of the channel.
Ready-Mix Concrete Site
22

23. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Discharge is clear; represents excess water from a recharge water
storage pond. However, excessive flow has scoured the discharge
area and taken out the silt fence.
Sand and Gravel Facility
23

24. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 Salt spreader staged outside (lower left)
 Oil stains on ground (upper right)
 Miscellaneous products “stored” outside
(lower right)
School Bus Depot –
Violations for BMPs
24

25. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P
 KCMO and St. Louis settled with EPA for illegal overflows of untreated raw
sewage.
o Both cities agreed to make extensive improvements to sewer
systems and treatment plants.
• KCMO estimated cost of $2.5 billion over 25 years. $600,000
penalty.
• STL estimated cost of $4.7 billion over 23 years. $1.2 million
penalty.
o State of Missouri did not join in EPA settlements.
 EPA regional enforcement actions against CAFOs:
o KS: $10,800 penalty for improper stockpiling of manure.
o NE: $20,000 penalty for land application of manure and wastewater
at levels exceeding the nutrient management plan.
o IA: required to reduce number of cattle, apply for NPDES permit, and
complete wastewater controls.
EPA Enforcement Actions
25

26. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P26
Don’t get caught looking for your ball….

27. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P27
Keep our water clean for the Salvy Splashes!

28. © 2 0 1 6 L a t h r o p & G a g e L L P28