The Environmental Protection Agency released a draft multi-sector general permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with industrial activity (MSGP). The proposed permit, issued under the Clean Water Act of 1972 ( 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) will replace the existing MSGP that expires on June 4, 2020. The renewed permit affects facilities in states and areas where the EPA is the NPDES permitting authority (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, tribal lands, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and most U.S. territories and protectorates). For those state agencies that have been delegated the authority to issue NPDES permits, the renewed permit will be used as a template that delineates the stormwater management practices and monitoring standards for thousands of industrial facilities. Brief History The first use of this Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for managing industrial stormwater began in 1995, with renewals required every five years. EPA used the novel approach of issuing a blanket permit in an attempt to balance protection of the environment and provisions of the Clean Water Act without the burden of issuing thousands of individual permits to each industrial site. The provisions of permit are organized by industrial sector, broken down by the facility’s standard Industrial code (SIC). Incorporating the Recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences The draft permit incorporates many of the recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) . (See our previous blog on the report). The NASEM report calls for the EPA to utilize the best available science, relevant recent data, and technological advances to improve management of storm water from industrial sources. In addition to clarifications, simplifications, and streamlining to accommodate more electronic information submittals, the EPA reviewed and accepted many of the recommendations made by NSEM: EPA will establish “universal benchmark monitoring,” industry-wide monitoring parameters that include pH, total suspended solids (TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD). The NASEM report suggests these as “basic indicators of the effectiveness of stormwater control measures (SCMs) employed on site” for permit holders. These parameters would indicate potential issues of poor site management or improper implementation of SCM’s. EPA considered the NASEM recommendation to “periodically review and update sector-specific benchmark monitoring requirements” to incorporate new information that could also reflect industry sector-wide practices. The proposed permit requires that additional sectors conduct benchmark monitoring. NASEM recommended benchmark thresholds based on the latest toxicity criteria designed to protect aquatic ecosystems. EPA modified the benchmark threshold for cadmium, removed the thresholds for magnesium and iron, and is considering modification of benchmark thresholds for selenium, arsenic, and copper. (The EPA is seeking comments on modifications to selenium, arsenic, and copper thresholds.) NASEM recommended that the EPA allow and promote the use of composite sampling. The permit clarifies that composite sampling is acceptable for benchmark monitoring. NASEM recommended removing the waiver for a permittee to discontinue monitoring for the remainder of the permit term if four consecutive quarters of sampling data show parameters below the benchmark. The permit now requires quarterly sampling throughout the permit term. Benchmark monitoring will now be required for three additional sectors recommended by NASEM: Oil and Gas Extraction sector for ammonia, nickel, total recoverable lead, nitrate-nitrogen, total recoverable zinc, and hardness in addition to the universal benchmark parameters. Land Transportation and Warehousing sector for lead, mercury, and hardness in addition to the universal benchmark parameters. Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yards for total recoverable chromium, total recoverable copper, total recoverable lead, total recoverable nickel, total recoverable zinc, and hardness in addition to the universal benchmark parameters. EPA is also soliciting comments on whether to allow for a tiered monitoring scheme that includes an “inspection only” option for “low risk” facilities. Benchmark monitoring would not be required but EPA is considering a rigorous inspection protocol. The NASEM report made some substantive recommendations that the EPA decided not to accept: EPA declined to accept the NASEM recommendation to include nonindustrial facilities with activities similar to those currently required under the MSGP after reviewing the sectors already covered by the permit and by the discretion granted to the Director to add any facility discharging industrial stormwater. The EPA declined to implement the recommendation to collect monitoring data and establish new numerical effluent limitations on the performance of stormwater control measures, citing the paucity of rigorous industrial performance data and technical limitations. However, EPA requests comments on viable alternative approaches for characterizing discharges, quantifying pollutant concentrations, and assessing the effectiveness of stormwater control measures. The EPA reviewed its existing guidance on how to conduct visual and analytical monitoring and determined that updating and strengthening monitoring, sampling, and analysis protocols, as recommended by NASEM, was not necessary. Next Steps The draft permit was published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2020 Comments will be accepted until May 1, 2020. The EPA will consider the comments, make changes to the final permit, and are expected to issue the final permit shortly after. We can expect that the states using the federal permit as a template will be making modifications to the state counterparts as the permits come up for renewal.
A periodic visit to the EPA list of states and territories that have adopted the hazardous waste generator improvement ruls.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to track the states aopting the hazardous waste generator improvement rule, which is a collection of new and revised regulations that can have an impact on the waste management activities of thousands of small quantity generators of hazardous waste. Over 60 changes and technical corrections are intended to improve clarity and provide flexibility ( https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/fact-sheet-about-hazardous-waste-generator-improvements-final-rule ). The rule is now effective in Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Utah, the Virgin Islands, Virginia, and West Virginia ( http://www.retailcrc.org/Pages/State-Tracking-Matrix.aspx ). The deadline for states to have hazardous waste regulatory programs that incorporate the more stringent aspects of the federal rule was July 1, 2018. If the state regulatory process requires changes to legislation, the deadline is July 1, 2019. Meanwhile, enforcement of hazardous waste management regulations continues, with Whole Foods among the latest retail organizations running afoul of state enforcement authorities. Progressive Grocer ( https://progressivegrocer.com ) reports that Whole Foods paid a fine of $1.6 million for failure to properly dispose of hazardous materials in California. For additional information on the status of the regulations and other information on environmental compliance at retailers, check out the Center for Retail Compliance ( www.retailcrc.org ). Integrity Environmental Strategies offers services to hazardous waste generators in multiple business sectors. Contact us for assistance in developing sound environmental management programs that can address hazardous and solid waste management, as well as other environmental, health, and safety compliance concerns.
In February 2016 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a settlement with several environmental groups (Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, People Concerned about Chemical Safety; and the Natural Resources Defense Council), agreeing to begin a rulemaking process to propose spill prevention rules that would cover over 350 hazardous substances (HS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The existing spill prevention, control and countermeasures (SPCC) requirements would be extended to include thousands of additional facilities or require existing facilities to rewrite SPCC plans to include the additional chemicals. Current SPCC regulations apply only to oil and petroleum storage (40 CFR 112). Regulations for the additional hazardous materials were expected to be finalized on a somewhat expedited schedule, in 2019. An Abrupt Change in Practice In October 2017 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive ordering the EPA to end "Sue & Settle" practices, stating that “The days of regulation through litigation are over.” Many “Sue & Settle” cases establish EPA obligations “without participation by states and/or the regulated community; foreclose meaningful public participation in rulemaking; effectively force the Agency to reach certain regulatory outcomes; and, cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars.” The SPCC settlement, negotiated by the previous administration, arguably can be regarded as an example of “Sue & Settle,” given the limited number of stakeholders involved in the agreement. However, at least one environmental advocacy group, Clean Water Action , points out that the authority and obligation to promulgate regulations can be found in the original language of the 1972 legislation. EPA Invites Comments on the Need for Expanded Spill Regulations On June 25, 2018, the EPA announced that “Based on an analysis of the frequency and impacts of reported CWA HS discharges and the existing framework of EPA regulatory requirements, the Agency is not proposing additional regulatory requirements at this time. This proposed action is intended to comply with the Consent Decree and to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment on EPA’s proposed approach to satisfy the CWA requirements.” (83 Federal Register 122, p 29499) While the EPA recognizes that the CWA included the promulgation of regulations “establishing procedures, methods, and equipment to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels and from onshore facilities and offshore facilities,” the agency determined that existing regulatory programs, such as wastewater and storm water discharge permit programs, hazardous waste management under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Air Act Risk Management Program (RMP), and others, provide an adequate framework to prevent CWA HS discharges. Comments are due to the EPA by August 24, 2018. While no regulatory action is planned by the EPA, the analysis shows a complex tangle of federal and state requirements applicable to facilities that handle and store hazardous substances. Now would be a good time to carefully review your facility’s plans and procedures for addressing releases of hazardous materials. If you have concerns about your company’s hazardous materials storage and handling plans, contact Integrity Environmental Strategies for a brief review and discussion of actions you may need to make.
EPA encourages the regulated community to engage in systematic self-audits to identify and correct environmental compliance issues. Several documents and announcements released recently by the EPA show a renewed effort to educate the regulated community in the benefits of voluntary disclosure of environmental violations.
States continue to adopt “Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule” that became effective at the federal level on May 30, 2017.
A blog post dedicated to practical aspects of environmental, health, and safety compliance topics, selected and edited by Integrity Environmental Strategies partners.