September 7, 2016
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)’s industrial stormwater website has developed many new guides to help industrial dischargers (Industrial General Permit, IGP, permitees) understand what is required and how to best to utilize the on-line reporting protocols for IGP compliance. Despite the resources and this outreach provided on the SWRCB website many industries and businesses could be at risk, and may not understand that they could be in violation of the current IGP.
Recent direct communications with SWRCB and local Regional Boards’ have indicated that during the 2016-2017 permit cycle year, inspections will be more detailed for facilities considered to be at high risk, which were specifically named as those with a long history of water quality violations, as well as scrap metal recyclers, and End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) recycling. There will also be increased focus on facilities that discharge to impaired waterbodies with adopted Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements.
Industries should take action now if there is any uncertainty in regards to the meeting permit regulations. Contact your local SCS Engineers’ office or one of our industrial stormwater experts in California, Cory Jones or Jonathan Meronek. If you need questions answered, or if you are unsure of your business’s requirements, and believe that your facility may be in violation, SCS will help sort through the permitting red-tape. This includes SMARTs filing, NOI/NEC or NONA submittals, SWPPPs and Monitoring and Implementation Plans.
Recent News, Stats, and Resources
- The State Board notified enrolled permittees that they must submit their annual reports electronically. Reference the Electronic Reporting – Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) Database
- As of June 30, 2016, only approximately 2000 out of 8581 annual reports (statewide) have been submitted electronically.
- NONA: The State Board has reviewed the Notice of Non-Applicability (NONA) forms submitted for the Statewide NPDES Permit Coverage for Drinking Water System Discharges; only a small percentage (9 of 150±) were done correctly and approved.
- The State Board found that a certification by a professional engineer had not been completed approving that the sites are not hydraulically connected, or
- A No Exposure Certification (NEC) should have been filed instead of a NONA.
Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am