We will continue to see changes on the federal, state and local regulatory front that together will help us manage storm water in a smart, cost-effective manner preserving our water resources. Betsy Powers of SCS Engineers provides an update in her most recent article.
Until a new WOTUS definition is finalized, the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army have indicated their intent to re-codify the pre-Obama regulations. The revised WOTUS rule is expected to include looser regulatory requirements, meaning fewer waters will qualify, and therefore, fewer permits will be required.
To speed up approvals of permits for highways, bridges, pipelines and other major infrastructure, an Obama-era executive order aimed at reducing exposure to flooding, sea level rise and other consequences of climate change were rolled back reducing the environmental reviews and restrictions on government-funded building projects in flood-prone areas.
Removing phosphorus from storm water runoff is a hot topic, with partners exploring alternative opportunities to reduce the introduction of phosphorus in runoff, remove it or manage it in watersheds.
More proprietary filters are being used for pretreatment before underground infiltration for redevelopment sites for total suspended solids (TSS) control and where land is limited. The performance of proprietary devices continues to be studied and improved to meet regulatory requirements. Increasing general attention is being paid to emerging contaminants that are problematic in storm water runoff. Among the emerging contaminants of concern are pharmaceutical and personal care products, pesticides, hydrocarbons, and hormones. Many of which are now included within the Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals group.
Betsy Powers is a civil and environmental engineer with SCS Engineers.
By Ali Khatami
MSW sanitary landfills constantly face the issue of aesthetics due to leachate seeping out of the landfill slopes. Of course, the problem goes away after the construction of the final cover, but the final cover construction may not take place for many years after seeps show up on slopes. To the public, leachate seeps represent a problem with the design of the landfill and possible malfunction of the leachate collection system below the waste, which is an incorrect perception. Such arguments are common and difficult to counter.
Landfill operators use different means to control leachate seeps from landfill slopes and to clean up the unpleasant view of the seep as soon as they can. Innovative solutions to address the issue have been observed and noted in the industry. The degree of effectiveness of the solution to some extent depends on the amount of money spent to address the problem. Some landfills are located in rural areas and the operator may not mind the unpleasant appearance of the slopes, so naturally no urgency in addressing the issue or no money available to take care of the problem.
The environmental side of the leachate seep issue is the impact to surface water quality. If leachate seeps remain unresolved, liquids coming out of slope may eventually reach the landfill perimeter and mix with stormwater in the landfill perimeter ditch. At that point, the operational issue turns into a compliance issue, and regulatory agencies get involved. If the public around the site is on top of their game concerning their opposition to the landfill, they can take the non-compliance issue and turn it into a political issue. At that point, the landfill operator finds himself or herself on the hot plate dealing with the agency and the public on an environmental impact matter.
It always makes sense to stay ahead of the issues and address any potentially sensitive condition before it turns into a major problem. As discussed above, addressing leachate seeps can be done in many different ways, and the operator needs to be prepared to fight for funds to address leachate seeps as they appear on slopes. Availability of funds and willingness of the operator to take necessary action are the primary required elements to stay ahead of the game.
SCS has developed methodologies to address all sorts of leachate seeps on landfill slopes and is uniquely equipped to assist you with a solution. Reach out to a local SCS office for a consultation if you have leachate seep problem at your site.
Ann O’Brien of SCS Engineers has pulled together a list of questions that printers should be asking themselves before the environmental reporting season is upon us.
Use Ann’s questions as a guide to find out how ready your company is, and decrease your risk of non-compliance by being more organized.
If you don’t know the answers, ask Ann. She’s one of our air and water permitting, monitoring, and reporting experts at SCS. Ann specializes in printing industry compliance.
Contact and we’ll direct you to an air, storm water, wastewater, or groundwater expert near you and in your industry.
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
