How to stay in compliance, do what is right and avoid costly fines and litigation.
The State of California passed regulations in 2015 that impact all craft brewers (SIC Code 2082) who must comply with these regulations by either preparing and implementing a plan or certifying “no exposure” for their facility. While enforcement has so far been limited, the State maintains a searchable database by SIC code, and compliance determinations by government officials, environmental groups and other non-government organizations is comparatively easy.
Based on our research, the current compliance rate for craft brewers in California is relatively low. Those who don’t comply run the risk of fines or citizen suits by non-profits, which can be costly and time-consuming. Find out about the different types of compliance, what is involved, and how to stay in compliance.
A Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner (QISP) can help you answer the following questions:
For more information or help with stormwater compliance in California, contact Dan Johnson at or the California Craft Brewers Association. If you are a CCBA member, you may access slides from a recent Webinar relating to Stormwater Compliance for Craft Brewers here. To sign up for our e-newsletter on stormwater and compliance tips send an email to .
Contact for stormwater compliance services in all 50 states.
If your company stores oil-based inks and manages them as part of your facility’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan, it may be feasible to use an impracticability determination as an alternative approach to comply.
Read the article by Chris Jimieson of SCS Engineers.
The high viscosity of oil-based inks can provide an opportunity for an alternative means of complying with the secondary containment requirements of the SPCC Rule. An impracticability determination can be an appropriate option for oil-based ink you store in single walled containers at print or similar facilities.
Your facility will need a Qualified Industrial Stormwater Practioner (QISP) to perform an ERA Level 1 Assessment, on or before October 1, 2017, and follow up with an ERA Level 1 Technical Report by January 1, 2018, or as soon as is practicable. We recommend that this assessment and report be performed prior to the wet season of the 2017-18 permit cycle year, to assist dischargers in reviewing their minimum required BMPs and if needed, implement additional BMPs.
Review your ERA Level 1 Action Plan now. Is it correct given the additional NAL exceedances? You should review all items needed for a successful ERA Level 2 Action Plan and Technical Report to successfully reduce and/or eliminate pollutants of concern in stormwater discharge.
Your facility is required to submit an ERA Level 2 Action Plan, prepared by a QISP, which addresses each Level 2 NAL exceedance via SMARTs. This Action Plan must identify which of the three options below (or a combination thereof) of demonstration(s) the Discharger has selected to perform:
The State Water Board acknowledges that there may be cases where a combination of the demonstrations may be appropriate; therefore a Discharger may combine any of the three demonstration options in their Level 2 ERA Technical Report, when appropriate.
It is important to note that Level 2 is a serious situation under the IGP and you should start working immediately on your stormwater management goals for the ERA Level 2 Action Plan, which is due by January 1, 2018. For the BMP demonstration option, Dischargers may have to implement additional BMPs, which may include physical, structural, or mechanical devices that will reduce and/or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharge.
The ERA Level 2 Technical Report, which summarizes the option(s) chosen and all relevant technical information, including design storm standards for treatment control BMPs, must be overseen and signed by a California Professional Engineer (PE) and submitted by January 1st, 2019.
Get help now by contacting an SCS Stormwater Professional near you.
Federal regulations require NPDES industrial stormwater Discharger to certify and submit via SMARTs an Annual Report on or before July 15th of each reporting year. Each facility should have already prepared the Annual Comprehensive Facility Compliance Evaluation (ACFCE). Per IGP Section XVI, the Discharger shall include in the Annual Report:
To learn more about filing, read the SCS Stormwater June Newsletter.
We hope that you find these tips helpful. If you have questions about sampling techniques, how to be prepared for storms, permitting, or anything else for compliance in California contact: Jonathan Meronek, , or your local office.
In her latest article, Betsy Powers describes how industrial storm water permits are designed to protect the quality of surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater. She succinctly provides what you need to know to ensure your company complies with state and federal laws under the Tier 1 or Tier 2 General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity. Betsy answers these questions:
Betsy also sends you to the necessary documents for Wisconsin in her article. A quick read, packed with guidance and resources.
SCS Engineers provides these services nationwide. Contact and we’ll connect you with our professionals knowledgeable of your state requirements.
About the Author: Ms. Powers is a civil and environmental engineer with more than 16 years of consulting experience. She has consulted on diverse site development and environmental compliance projects and has helped clients work cooperatively with regulatory agencies and their constituents to successfully complete projects.
By October 17, 2016, coal combustion residual (CCR) landfills subject to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CCR regulations published at 40 CFR 257, Subpart D, also known as the Federal CCR Rule, were required to prepare a Run-on and Run-off Control System Plan. Your plan documents how you have designed and constructed your landfill to prevent storm water from running onto or off the active landfill. But, what’s next?
Have you addressed run-on and run-off control system operation and maintenance?
Spring is a great time to review your storm water control plans and, more importantly, your storm water controls. The snow is gone now and spring rains are on their way, so knowing that your storm water controls are working and water is going where you intend it to go should be part of your spring inspection routine. Don’t want to waste money managing clean storm water with your leachate management system, or put your facility at risk by allowing unintended runoff from the landfill. A few basic inspection tasks will help ensure you don’t.
A spring run-on and run-off control system inspection should include the following:
Don’t let spring rains catch you off guard. SCS Engineers can help you assess the effectiveness of your run-on and run-off control systems. For help conducting storm water inspections as well as studies to review leachate, contact water, and storm water minimization and reuse opportunities, or for questions about run-on and run-off control system inspections or more information about minimization and reuse studies, please contact:
Mike McLaughlin, PE, Senior Vice President
Eric Nelson, PE, Vice President
Steve Lamb, PE, Vice President
Kevin Yard, PE, Vice President
Or, contact your local SCS Engineers office.
Learn more about the author Eric Nelson:
Eric J. Nelson, PE, is a Vice President of SCS Engineers and our National Expert for Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR). He is an experienced engineer and hydrogeologist. His diverse experience includes solid waste landfill development, soil and groundwater remediation, and brownfield redevelopment.
Mr. Nelson has worked with utility clients to complete numerous projects for dry CCR landfills, CCR ponds, and general environmental monitoring and compliance. He has been involved with CCR landfill projects that include feasibility analyses and permitting of landfill expansions; hydrogeologic and geotechnical site investigations; site design and operating plans; soil borrow source identification and permitting; liner and final cover construction liner, cover, and storm water management repairs. He has worked with utility clients to evaluate, plan, permit and complete CCR pond repairs and closures.
Mr. Nelsons environmental monitoring and compliance experience includes groundwater monitoring; oil containment design and construction; and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) planning. This diverse project experience has provided him the opportunity to work on challenging and innovative projects that have included design and permitting for wetland and stream mitigation, identifying and avoiding former underground mines during site design, and assessing the feasibility of installing a solar photovoltaic system on a closed CCR landfill.
Mr. Nelsons additional areas of expertise include remedial action planning, cost estimating, bidding and construction documents, and construction quality assurance. He has worked with electric utilities, solid waste facility owners/operators, and private property owners and developers.
At the upcoming USWAG CCR Workshop Feb 22-23 in Arlington, VA, Steve Lamb and Floyd Cotter of SCS Engineers will present a session about the advantages and disadvantages of emerging alternative capping options, and how different regulatory agencies are viewing these options.
About this Session: Traditional final cover and capping design for coal combustion residual (CCR) surface impoundments and landfills have included compacted soil liner, geomembrane liner, drainage layer, and a vegetative soil cover. But coal-fired plants oftentimes don’t have the large volumes of soil that it takes to implement these options.
Alternative capping options have recently emerged in the industry such as exposed geomembrane liners or synthetic turf/geomembrane liner systems. Some of these alternative capping options have many advantages over their traditional counterparts. These advantages include faster installation times, minimal need for soil, improved storm water quality, and reduced maintenance and post-closure costs. For surface impoundments, alternative capping designs can also greatly reduce the amount of disturbance of the existing CCR material within the impoundment.
About Steve Lamb: Steve Lamb, PE provides SCS with over 27 years of experience in solid and hazardous waste management, environmental engineering, civil engineering, hydrology and hydraulics, landfill engineering, remedial design, and regulatory compliance. Mr. Lamb is a Vice President and director of SCS’s Charlotte, NC office.
About Floyd Cotter: Floyd Cotter specializes in solid waste management projects. His project work involves all areas of solid waste management including planning, permitting, transportation, landfill design, construction, and monitoring. Mr. Cotter is also experienced in general civil engineering, construction oversight, environmental site assessments, closure and post-closure plans, and permit and contract document preparation.
Rainy Days – SCS Engineers’ newsletter on everything Stormwater! We have shared some information below about stormwater compliance to help you understand and navigate the sometimes confusing regulatory process – a process that may leave you in a “daze”.
Cory Jones, PE, QSD, QISP ToR, ENV SP
SCS Engineers, Stormwater Management
Take me to the December 2016 Newsletter
SCS Engineers Stormwater Services
Every state in the country has different permits to enforce the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act (CWA). Several states even have specific permits assigned to industry sectors. This article discusses with proper planning, most facilities can find a way to avoid fines and lawsuits. Implementing one of the alternatives could even reposition your operation as a safe, clean and respected industry leader that values the environment, the local economy, and community.
Read, share, and print the Recycling Today article here.
By Bruce J. Clark, SCS Engineers
In 2015, the City of Miami Beach Public Works Department took the initiative to raise about 4,200 feet of asphalt streets. It’s also implementing a master plan developed in 2014 to protect the homes and livelihoods of 88,000 residents and $50 million in taxes.
Several U.S. cities are exploring how global climate trends could affect local infrastructure, but Miami Beach is the nation’s first city to face the reality of rising sea levels. Consequently, the city is providing others with unique insight. In the words of City Engineer Bruce Mowry, “There’s no playbook for these solutions.”
