California’s Industrial and Construction General Stormwater Permits: Concerns and Strategies for Port Operations
Alta’s David Renfrew co-presented with Dylan Porter of the Port of Los Angeles at PortCon 2017 in November. They discussed the adoption and implementation of the most recent Industrial General Permit and the Construction General Permit in California presents significant challenges to marine transportation and port-wide facilities operating in California’s Seaports and Harbors. Most port facilities in California have receiving waters listed as impaired on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List which in turn leads to higher scrutiny for facilities operating in those areas. Facilities, construction sites, and municipalities that discharge to receiving waters must comply with federal, state, and local water quality policies, permits, and regulations. This presentation provides awareness of the common water quality regulations, explores the common issues associated with seaport operations, and provides suggested strategies for complying with the permits to avoid regulatory violations and potential third-party lawsuits. A review of common and not so common best management practices was discussed.
Alta’s President, Lisa Kay authored the recently published whitepaper Assessing the Potential of Storm Water Capture and Use as a collaborative effort with the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Water Reliability Coalition.
PFAS Are Emerging Chemical Impacting Water - Alta Expert Lynleigh Love Article in World Water Magazine
PFAS are detected in waters around the world as well as locally, posing a threat to water quality. The entire magazine can be found HERE at this live link. Read the article below.
Alta Environmental to Host Free Workshop Focused on Industrial Permits ERA Level One and ERA Level Two Planning
TCP was all over the news this summer as information emerged regarding groundwater contamination in Central California following the December 2016 award of $22M to the City of Clovis in a lawsuit against Shell and Dow over TCP contamination in the city’s drinking water wells. On July 18th, the State of California Water Resources Control Board held a meeting to consider adopting proposed regulations for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) or a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). An MCL establishes a legal threshold limit on the amount of a substance that is allowed in public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The result of the meeting was the establishment of an MCL at a value of 5 parts per trillion (0.005 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) which will become effective October 1, 2017. Compliance monitoring is set to begin in January of 2018.
It’s that time of year again, your Annual Report for the Construction General Storm Water Discharge Permit (CGP) is due on September 1. Hopefully this deadline didn’t sneak up on you. As the Legally Responsible Person (LRP), you are responsible for the validity of the information contained in that Annual Report. Typically, the project Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) will answer the questions in Storm Water Multiple Application Report Tracking System (SMARTS) and send you, the LRP or the Approved Signatory (AS), an email notification to log-in and certify the Annual Report. When that Annual Report is certified, the LRP/AS is doing so under the penalty of perjury that the information contained therein is accurate and reflective of the project for the previous reporting year (July 1 through June 30). Did you review that Report?
Sacramento Court Eliminates Former Drinking Water Limit for the Toxin Made Infamous in Erin Brockovich Film
On May 31, 2017 the Superior Court of Sacramento County issued a judgement invalidating a formerly established maximum containment level (MCL) in drinking water for the metal hexavalent chromium also known as hex-chrome or chrom-6. The primary reason for finding the MCL invalid was that the California Department of Public Health (originally responsible for managing drinking water programs before the State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] took over) failed to properly consider the economic feasibility of complying with the MCL… meaning the agency failed to consider how realistic the price of any projects or efforts to comply with the MCL would be for the public.