Compliance with the Industrial General Permit for Light Industrial Facilities - No Exposure Certification
The newly released National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Dischargers Associated with Industrial Activities, NPDES No. CAS000001 (2014 IGP) contains significant revisions from the prior 1997 Industrial Storm Water General Permit (1997 IGP). The 2014 IGP includes many substantive changes that will impose new and increased compliance requirements to a large number of industrial facilities.
Previously, light industrial facilities were exempt from the 1997 IGP requirements as long as the light industrial facility eliminated non-storm water discharges and ensured that their industrial activities were not exposed to storm water. However, the 2014 IGP requires that these light industrial facilities must now enroll for permit coverage, even if they do not expose their industrial activity to storm water. Any light industrial facility seeking to claim a conditional exclusion under the new 2014 IGP must apply and complete a No Exposure Certification and attach pertinent documents. To be successful in obtaining a No Exposure Certification, the light industrial facility must show that no exposure to storm water occurs at their facility.
What does it mean to have “No Exposure”?
All industrial materials and activities must be protected by a storm water-resistant shelter to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt and runoff. The following must not come in contact with storm water or storm water runoff:
- material-handling equipment or activities
- industrial machinery
- raw materials, intermediate products, by-products, final products, or waste products
Who May File for No Exposure Certification Coverage
An industrial facility may obtain No Exposure Certification coverage if the industrial facility certifies that a condition of “No Exposure” exists at the industrial facility by submitting No Exposure Certification Permit Registration Documents via the State Water Resources Control Board’s Storm Water Multi-Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) and pays an annual fee.
Steps to Obtain No Exposure Certification Coverage
1. Determine if your facility is subject to the 2014 IGP (as defined in Attachment A of the 2014 IGP)
A. Does your facility meet the definitions of “No Exposure” and qualify for the No Exposure Certification? If yes, proceed to step number 2. If no, obtain a Notice of Intent coverage via SMARTS.
2. Certify and electronically submit the completed Permit Registration Documents for No Exposure Certification coverage via SMARTS and mail the annual fee to the State Water Board. Permit Registration Documents include:
A. Facility information
B. Facility Site Maps
C. No Exposure Certification Checklist - An inspection and evaluation of each individual industrial facility that evaluates 11 major areas where storm water exposure may occur.
D. Certification - Via submitting forms electronically to SMARTS and pay an annual fee
3. Annual inspection and evaluation, re-certification and fee are required thereafter. If a physical or operational change occurs which causes exposure of industrial activities or materials to storm water, the industrial facility must then immediately comply with all the requirements of the 2014 IGP and obtain Notice of Intent coverage.
When will compliance of the 2014 IGP become effective?
The complete implementation of the new 2014 IGP is on or before July 1, 2015 with all appropriate documents uploaded and certified via SMARTS. If your facility meets the No Exposure Certification requirements then enrollment and compliance will become effective on October 1, 2015. To avoid being fined by the Water Board we recommend that your facility/site be in compliance by the implementation date. Rincon can assist you with your compliance needs and questions. We can assist with SWPPP writing and amendments, No Exposure Certification, annual reporting, Environmental Action Reports, create up-to-date site maps, assist with electronic filing, provide storm water monitoring and inspecting, provide training, and much more. If you have any questions regarding the 2014 IGP, to help determine if your facility is subject to the 2014 IGP, or have any compliance needs, please contact Ed De La Llave or Kristin Roberts at (805) 644-4455.
By Jonathan Berlin, MESM
This article was originally published in the APA California Northern News Newsletter (September 2014 edition). The original article can be read here.
Starting at 5:30 AM on Tuesdays and Thursdays, Richard Yan bikes from San Francisco’s Mission District through a patchwork of marshes, parks, golf courses, and local roads to his office in Mountain View. As part of the SF2G group, kicked off by Google employees in 2005, Yan rides in a pack with other members of the South Bay’s high-tech sector. “It is quite a nice way to start your morning and see the sunrise,” Yan says of his 48-mile ride. The development of the San Francisco Bay Trail over the last 25 years has enabled many such commutes by bicycle, along with better access to recreation, on a network of trails ringing the Bay. When the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted the Bay Trail Plan in 1989 to guide the development of this network, the agency inherited about 100 miles of preexisting trails but envisioned 500 miles total. Today, the Bay Trail Project at ABAG has completed 338 miles, including large chunks of a primary “spine trail” and spur trails toward the shoreline. Based on this success, the APA’s Northern Section and APA California both honored the San Francisco Bay Trail with a 2014 Planning Landmark Award of Excellence, signifying a historically significant effort that opened new directions in planning over at least a quarter century. This story explores the contributing factors to development of the Bay Trail, emerging challenges, and lessons for regional and local planning.
Local partners for regional planning
Moving from a grand regional vision to local implementation, the Bay Trail Project’s first step was to lobby all nine Bay-Area counties and 47 shoreline cities to incorporate the Bay Trail into their general plans, local trail plans, and specific plans for waterfront development.
All local jurisdictions now unanimously support the Bay Trail. When shoreline developments are proposed, Bay Trail staff retains a role during the CEQA public involvement process in "elevating public access as a priority at the local level to help further the regional goal of completing a continuous Bay Trail,” says Laura Thompson (right), who has managed the Bay Trail Project since 2004.
Beyond enlisting cities and counties, the Bay Trail Project has partnered with the Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC), the only citizen-led group solely focused on implementing the Bay Trail, since its inception in 1999. “When we formed TRAC, Richmond had only 12 miles of Bay Trail built,” says TRAC chair and co-founder Bruce Beyaert, “and they were fragmented.” To put this into context, Richmond has 32 miles of Bay frontage — or “more shoreline than most cities can shake a paddle at,” as a current Chevron advertisement boasts. With a growing economy and many developments proposed on Richmond’s shoreline at the time, Beyaert saw a “window of opportunity” for improving connectivity. TRAC found a niche preparing grant applications on behalf of the City of Richmond, bringing in more than $7 million for Bay Trail segments, Beyaert says. Today, Richmond has more than 32 miles of Bay Trail completed, including more than four miles of shoreline trail not envisioned in the original plan. “The joke at ABAG is they want to clone TRAC!” says Beyaert (left).
A wave of grassroots environmental activism in the early 1960s led the State legislature to create the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), whose mission is to minimize fill in the Bay while maximizing responsible public access.
With its goal of improving public access to the Bay, BCDC is a natural ally in implementing shoreline trails for bicyclists and pedestrians. The agency has an expansive area of jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Bay’s open waters, marshes, mudflats, and the first 100 feet inland from the shoreline. In this area, BCDC’s permitting authority over the subdivision of property, grading, construction, and substantial changes in use can compel project applicants to provide right-of-way for the Bay Trail.
“No agency is going to do it out of the goodness of their heart,” Thompson acknowledges, “because they just don’t have the funding for it.” But BCDC permits have provided the necessary leverage to close major regional gaps in the Bay Trail.
Following the catastrophic 1989 Loma Prieta earth- quake, Caltrans has conducted seismic retrofits of bridges in the Bay Area, triggering the need for BCDC permits. As a condition of obtaining these permits, Caltrans has granted right-of-way for Bay Trail segments on the Carquinez and Benicia/Martinez bridges and the new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Today, five of the Bay Area’s seven bridges provide access to bicyclists and pedestrians, including preexisting access on the Golden Gate and Dumbarton bridges.
Conflict resolution through science
When Rick Parmer (right) joined the Bay Trail’s Board of Directors in 1990, bringing scientific knowledge as a naturalist for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, controversy arose over the impacts of trail use on shorebirds and waterfowl feeding in mudflats.
To settle the question, the Bay Trail Project and multiple partners funded a three-year Bay Trail Wildlife & Public Access Study, led by researchers at San Jose State University. Thirty-two observers dispersed to three different shoreline sites in Marin County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County, and counted birds and trail users in paired plots with and without existing trails.
The preliminary results found no general relationship between human use of trails and the abundance or diversity of birds in foraging habitats at these locations. According to Parmer, this comprehensive study satisfied most people that shoreline trails would not significantly impair birds. Parmer believes that trail planning benefits from the objectivity of science. “You’re not just using your subjective, best professional opinion,” he says, but rather relying on evidence backed by statistics.
A broad supporting constituency
While the Bay Trail initially proved popular with recre- ational bicyclists and pedestrians, trail use diversified in response to social trends. In the last decade, Parmer has observed a surge in the number of bicyclists commuting on the Albany-Berkeley corridor. Thompson has witnessed increases in birdwatchers tracking the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds in the winter. And the rise of Internet- based social groups like SF2G has catalyzed growth in all types of trail users.
Aware of growing employee interest in bike commuting, corporations are beginning to support the Bay Trail. Google recently became the first corporation to fund a non-adjacent trail segment, Parmer says, seeing value in improving connectivity throughout the South Bay.
As with planning in general, public health is becoming a motivating concern in trail planning. Kaiser Permanente, the health care provider based in Oakland, is sponsoring a series of events to celebrate the Bay Trail’s 25th anniversary. The Bay Trail Project also is interested in appointing someone with expertise in public health to its board of directors, says Thompson.
In the effort to finish the 500-mile ring and protect existing trail access, leaders point to three main challenges: funding, feasibility, and climate change. The bulk of funding to acquire right-of-way and develop trails has come from State bonds for parks, wildlife, and open space; however, existing bonds are running out, and the future funding environment on a State level is uncertain, Parmer says.
Implementation of remaining Bay Trail segments along interstate highways also depends on funding from the federal Highway Trust Fund. But the roadway user fees that supply this fund are increasingly too meager to meet demand. In August, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced that the Highway Trust Fund is becoming insolvent. Congressional squabbling over reauthorizing the federal transportation program also endangers this funding source. “Reauthorization of the federal Highway Trust Fund is a huge issue,” says Parmer.
Filling the remaining gaps in the Bay Trail also tends to be less feasible because of the unwillingness of landowners or technical challenges such as bridge retrofits. “We’re down to the tough parts now” says Thompson. For example, to complete access across the Bay Bridge’s west span, between Yerba Buena Island and downtown San Francisco, could require a cantilevered structure attached to the existing span — with a cost of $500 million to implement. The Bay Area Toll Authority is in the initial stages of planning this path.
Then there’s sea level rise — the “800-pound gorilla,” as Parmer calls it. BCDC’s Living with a Rising Bay report from 2011 projects a 16-inch rise in water level by mid-century, accelerating to a 55-inch rise by the end of the century. For a shoreline trail, sea level rise poses a critical threat. Already, high tides — combined with storm surge — flood the Bothin Marsh segment in Mill Valley. Anticipating this problem, the City of Alameda and East Bay Regional Park District submitted a grant application in April to elevate and resurface a three-mile trail segment on Bay Farm Island.
As sea level rise progresses, shoreline communities have “some hard decisions to make in the next couple of decades,” Thompson says. They can either armor existing infrastructure or retreat from the shoreline. Whether trails remain fortified or shift inland, the Bay Trail Project wants to maintain public access.
Author Jonathan Berlin is an Associate Environmental Planner at Rincon Consultants, where he serves as a lead analyst and project manager for trails and open space planning projects. Jon also specializes in CEQA/NEPA review and noise impact studies. He holds a Master in Environmental Science and Management (MESM) from UC Santa Barbara and a BA in Journalism from the University of Maryland. You can reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Types of Industrial Facilities Requiring Permit Coverage Under the New 2014 IGP
The new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities (Industrial General Permit) will become effective on July 1, 2015, and includes significant changes to industrial facilities requiring permitting, monitoring, and reporting processes.
Facilities requiring permitting under the IGP can include Federal, State, municipally owned and private facilities. Types of industrial facilities requiring permit coverage under the new Industrial General Permit (IGP) include the following:
1. Facilities required by Federal regulations.
- Examples of the Federal regulated facilities can be located in Attachment A of the IGP.
2. Facilities designated by the State Regional Board. These facilities are further categorized and defined by Standard Industrial Classification codes (SIC). Examples of Category descriptions and corresponding SIC codes can be found in Attachment A of the IGP and examples of the designated facilities are as follows:
- Manufacturing Facilities
- Oil and Gas/Mining Facilities
- Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facilities
- Landfills, Land Applications Sites, and open Dumps Facilities
- Recycling Facilities
- Steam Electric Power Generating Facilities
- Transport Facilities
- Sewage or Wastewater Treatment Work Facilities
3. Facilities that have been directed by the Regional Board.
- Facilities that have been directed by the Regional Board to obtain coverage under the new IGP are required to comply and be covered under the new permit.
Furthermore, the new IGP requires “light industry” to enroll under the new permit. However, a “light industry” facility can claim a conditional exclusion by filing a No Exposure Certification (NEC) certifying that there is no exposure of industrial activities and storage of materials to stormwater. The NEC is required to be filed annually.
The new IGP has recently adopted changes and will become effective on July 15, 2015. With changes to the new IGP, facilities must work with more stringent guidelines and produce documentation by the implementation deadline in order to remain in compliance. All facilities (new or previously covered) regulated under the IGP will now need to evaluate their current practices and documentation with respect to the new IGP requirements to assure that they are in full compliance. Significant advantages and an expedited permitting process can be found with those that understand the new requirements and can generate the required documents.
For additional information on determining your facilities enrollment under the new IGP, or any other related topics to the new IGP please contact us. For an overview of the 2014 IGP, see our previous article here, and stay tuned for our next post in the series.
If you have any questions, or wish any assistance in the new Industrial General Permit requirements, please feel free to contact Kristin Roberts or Ed De La Llave at (805) 644-4455, or request a quote below.
A state law originally passed in 2007 has taken effect that requires certain commercial property owners to disclose their structure’s energy use. California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 1103, the Non-residential Building Energy Use Disclosure, stipulates that non-residential property owners must complete energy benchmarking and disclose building energy usage for buildings with a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or larger anytime they finance, sell, or lease such structures. After July 1, 2014, the same regulations will apply to non-residential buildings with a gross floor area of greater than 5,000 square feet. Certain use types are excluded, including factories, residential, institutional, and laboratory buildings.
To standardize this reporting, AB 1103 requires non-residential building owners to compile and input their buildings energy consumption data into the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager system. Both electricity and natural gas data are required to be uploaded. To upload data, property owners are required to gather annual energy usage data from each individual building tenant and generate a Data Verification Checklist for the entire building. The law applies no matter how many individual tenants occupy the building. For shopping centers, owners may benchmark each building individually or combine each building’s energy use as a package for the entire shopping center.
The ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager system is an on line system accessible for non-residential buildings throughout the Unites States that that acts as a repository for building energy usage data. Upon input, each buildings energy usage is compared to buildings across their zone and a efficiency rating and report for the building is generated.
To comply with AB 1103, non-residential building owners must disclose the Data Verification Checklist and rating to the following:
- A prospective buyer of the building (no later than 24 hours prior to execution of the sales contract).
- A prospective lessee of the entire building (no later than 24 hours prior to execution of the lease).
- A prospective lender financing the entire building (no later than submittal of the loan application).
- Submit an electronic copy of the “Data Verification Checklist” via email to the CEC
For additional information or assistance with AB 1103, energy audits, or sustainable management planning, please contact Erik Feldman at (805) 644-4455 or request a quote using the button below.
Authority cited: Sections 25213, 25218(e), 25402.10, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 25402.10, Public Resources Code.
With the release of the new 2014 Industrial General Permit, we will be launching a blog series to introduce and provide information to determine whether an industrial facility must comply with California’s stormwater regulations. Over the next few months, keep an eye out for posts in our new series, “Stormwater Dischargers Associated with Industrial Activities” with subtopics that will help explain specific 2014 IGP key changes and compliance requirements.
Newly Adopted 2014 Industrial General Permit For Stormwater Dischargers
On April 1, 2014 the California State Water Resource Control Board released the news that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Dischargers Associated with Industrial Activities, NPDES No. CAS000001 has been adopted and will replace the current Industrial General Permit (IGP) issued in 1997. You can find the new 2014 IGP and supporting documents here.
The new lengthy 2014 IGP differs substantially from current requirements and contains significant revisions from the former permit and the circulated drafts in 2011 and 2013. The 2014 IGP will vastly increase the number of industries affected and impose new and increased compliance requirements. The complete implementation of the 2014 IGP is on or before July 1, 2015 with appropriate documents uploaded and certified to the State Water Board’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS), making all reports readily available to the public.
Key Changes to the Industrial General Permit
Regulation of Light Industries: Under the former permit, certain so-called "light industry" facilities were exempt from the permit's requirements as long as the facility eliminated non-storm water discharges and that their industrial activities were not exposed to storm water. However, under the 2014 IGP, these light industries must now enroll for permit coverage. These light industries may claim a conditional exclusion by filing a "No Exposure Certification" (NEC), certifying that their facility has no exposure of industrial activities and materials to storm water discharges. In order for a Discharger to seek NEC coverage, the Discharger must apply and submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), prepare and submit a Site Map, pay the annual fee and certify the NEC demonstrating no exposure via SMARTS on or before the implementation date. In addition, the Discharger or facility must allow inspections by Water Boards, local MS4, or US EPA staff. In order for the Discharger to stay in compliance with the State Water Resource Control Board, the Discharger must annually verify no exposure and pay the annual fee via SMARTS.
Mandatory BMPs: The former permit allowed dischargers to "consider" which non-structural and structural best management practices (BMPs) should be implemented to reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges. The 2014 IGP requires the implementation of numerous "minimum BMPs," including good housekeeping requirements, preventative maintenance, material handling and waste management, erosion and sediment controls, and employee training programs. Additional "advanced BMPs," including exposure minimization, storm water containment, discharge reduction, and treatment control BMPs, must also be implemented as necessary to reduce or prevent pollutant discharge.
Monitoring and Sampling Requirements: The former permit required conducting pre-storm visual observations and quarterly authorized and unauthorized non-storm water discharge visual observations. The 2014 IGP has now combined these two previous requirements into one new visual observation that is conducted at least once per calendar month during daylight hours of scheduled facility operating hours and on days without precipitation. The Discharger shall provide an explanation in the Annual Report for uncompleted monthly visual observations. Additionally, sampling protocols under the 2014 IGP have been modified to collect and analyze storm water samples from 2 Qualifying Storm Events (QSE) within the first half of each reporting year (July 1 to December 31) and 2 QSE within the second half of each reporting year (January 1 to June 30). Minimum required analyses are as follows: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), oil and grease (O&G) and pH. Additional analyses and parameters may be required based on the facilities Standard Industrial Classification Codes and location to impaired water bodies with a 303(d). The Discharger shall submit all sampling and analytical results for all sampling events via SMARTS within 30 days of obtaining all results for each sampling event.
Numeric Action Levels (NALs) and Exceedance Response Actions (ERAs): The 2014 IGP includes both annual and instantaneous maximum NALs, exceedances of which will trigger increasing levels of required actions and treatment controls (Figure 1). If a NAL exceedance occurs as specified in the 2014 permit, the Discharger has to implement various ERA corrective actions. There are two levels of these actions: Level 1 ERA and Level 2 ERA. Level 1 ERAs require a site evaluation and report by a QISP and Level 2 ERAs require a technical report by a QISP, non-industrial or background considerations and possible treatment.
Figure 1: Compliance Determination Flowchart
Source: Fact Sheet for the IGP.
Compliance Groups: The 2014 IGP eliminated group monitoring and created a new “compliance group” option for facilities and Dischargers of the same industry type with similar activities, pollutant sources and pollutant characteristics. Participating facilities and Dischargers that form a compliance group are required to have a designated compliance group leader who has completed a State Water Board approved training program for compliance group leaders. The compliance group leader is responsible to inspect each participant’s facility each year and is required to collect and analyze storm water samples from the participating group facilities twice each year.
The release of the 2014 IGP is very detailed and has many more compliance requirements than the previous 1997 permit. Rincon Consultants can assist Dischargers and facilities with the preparation of these new IGP compliance requirements.
Our goal with this series is to prepare you for the 2014 IGP key changes and requirements. Please stay tuned for our next post. If you have any questions, or wish any assistance in the new Industrial General Permit requirements, please feel free to contact Kristin Roberts or Ed De La Llave at (805) 644-4455.
By Ryan Gardner, LEED GA, ENV SP
With California entering its third year of drought conditions, Governor Jerry Brown has declared a drought emergency. 2013 was the State’s driest year on record and early projections for 2014 predict no change in sight. According to California Cooperative Snow Survey data as of March 11, the average Sierra snowpack is 69% below average, with lows in Northern California at 80% below average. Snowpack in the Sierras has historically acted as a free reservoir, storing water that can be used later in the year. The melt water from the snowpack typically represents one third of the state’s total water supply. This year’s below average snowpack is being coupled with low reservoir levels due to the past two years of dry weather. It is these conditions, in part, that prompted the Governor’s state of emergency announcement and a State Water Project prediction that for the first time in its history, “water agencies should expect a zero percent allocation of SWP water supplies due to record dry conditions and low storage levels.” A $687 Million dollar aid package has also been signed to provide aid to farmworkers and install new infrastructure to deal with the severe drought conditions.
As of January 17th, Brown has requested a 20% voluntary decrease in water use from residents, industry, and agriculture. Multiple cities throughout California have already implemented water restrictions, including Sacramento, Santa Cruz, and Long Beach - and many other agencies are preparing to enact water management plans. However, local plans may be overruled by statewide restrictions later in the season. The State Water Control Board has already stated that water right curtailments may become necessary. With more dry weather projected and the uncertain impacts of global climate change, the risks associated with water use have increased dramatically. An analysis of the 1991 California drought showed that a majority of water agencies were forced to enact water rationing programs and that many households paid significant fines and surcharges for overuse (in addition to higher standard rates) (Dixon, Moore, and Pint, 1996). The study also showed that although industrial and commercial users were largely insulated from price increases and rationing, their water use decreased by 15-20%, at least partially due to a slumping economy. In order to mitigate the possibility of water related risks, the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors have several water conservation options at their disposal.
Water Use Efficiency Measures
• Conduct a water audit to identify water use inefficiencies
• Install new water fixtures which perform better and use less water
• Install aerators on old faucets
• Investigate feasibility of greywater or water reuse
• Convert lawns to xeriscaping
• Manage storm-water runoff
• Infrastructure improvements and capital investments
Conducting a water use efficiency audit is the first step in determining the most cost effective water conservation projects. Many residential and commercial buildings can be easily retrofitted to reduce water and procure significant savings on monthly water bills. Ocean friendly gardens, greywater systems, and new fixtures are just some of the options available. Industrial, agricultural, and municipal level operations that depend on large quantities of water may need to look further to reduce their water use. Capital investments, which were not economical several years ago, may become feasible as water prices rise or water simply isn’t available. Both residential and large-scale water users can implement these water conservation projects in order to decrease environmental impacts as well as mitigate economic risks associated with the current drought conditions.
As California continues to see the effects of climate change and the population continues to grow, water has the potential to become an increasingly limited resource. If water supplies continue to decrease, costs will most likely rise in response. Enacting water conservation measures now presents an opportunity to increase water use efficiency, decrease costs, reduce risk, and be prepared for the future.
For additional information or assistance with water resource management, please contact Rincon Consultants here or request a quote using the button below.
The retrofit and redesign of existing parking lots presents an opportunity to reduce stormwater runoff and improve the sustainability and visual appearance within communities. Stormwater infiltration projects involve measuring the percolation potential of parking lots and installing permeable pavers to allow for stormwater infiltration, thus reducing the runoff that would otherwise wash into storm drains, creeks, and the ocean. Fine rock and soil filter the stormwater before it is recharged.
Rincon has completed several parking lot infiltration projects, and within the last month have been contracted for four similar projects. One of these projects, completed in December 2013, included the removal of approximately 100,000 square feet of asphalt and the installation of permeable pavers in Santa Barbara. Going forward, Rincon is looking forward to continuing our work on these exciting projects.
For more information on these projects and Prop 84 funding, please visit http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/prop84/.
By Ryan Gardner, LEED GA, ENV SP
The year 2013 presented a number of actions related to California Air Resources Board (ARB)’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting program. The first penalties levied by the ARB to reports for failure to comply with AB 32 were settled in November. Nine companies were fined a total of $295,000 for errors found in their 2011 and 2012 annual greenhouse gas reports. Several types of reporting errors were identified and by the ARB including:
• late reports
• deficient GHG Monitoring Plans
• failure to demonstrate the required level of precision, and
• various errors with GHG production calculations
With the levying of these penalties, the ARB makes a distinct departure from the leniency associated with the first two years of the GHG reporting program compliance enforcement, and opens the door to the heightened regulatory scrutiny that can be expected in the future.
Since its adoption, the AB 32 Mandatory Reporting Regulation (MRR) has undergone two significant updates to meet the needs of the Cap-and-Trade program and to repair some inconsistencies with the regulation. Revisions have ranged from changes to terminology in the definitions to expansion of the reporting requirements to include a variety of different product data. However, from a reporting perspective, the most significant part of the update is the revision made to section 95131(b)(8), which states that any discrepancies between a facilities-reported GHG data and the data evaluated by their GHG Verifier must be corrected. At first review, this change to the MRR does not appear to be overly onerous. However, a thorough review of ARB’s interpretation reveals that even a minor discrepancy can lead to a statement of non-conformance. ARB has stated that if all discrepancies identified during the verification process are not corrected, verifiers are obligated to submit an adverse verification statement, in accordance with sections 95131(b)(9) and 95102(a)(8). The implication of this change is that even minor rounding difference that may only represent a fraction of a percent can lead to a need for significant revisions to the GHG report or a reporter may face a significant monetary risk.
With these changes, reporters must now work through a more complex reporting and verification program while at the same facing heightened regulatory scrutiny. To protect themselves from fines and negative verifications reports must be confident in their abilities to adhere to an accurate greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting methodology that fully complies with the revised MRR. Significant advantages can be found in reporters who have a strong understanding of the verification process and will be able to design their calculations and reports to provide all the specific data and precision required by the MRR. A well-documented report will help to mitigate risks associated with increasingly stringent emissions regulations and save time and effort throughout the verification process.
For additional information or assistance with GHG reporting or verification assistance, please contact Ryan Gardner or Erik Feldman.
Rincon Consultants - Oakland
Rincon Consultants - Ventura
For more information on Rincon's sustainability services or to request a quote, please click the buttons below.
Recently, Rincon biologists performed trail camera surveys looking for the endangered San Joaquin kit fox in the Central Valley. Trail camera surveys were just one part of the complete study of a proposed renewable energy project site in Fresno County, which also included a jurisdictional delineation, cultural and paleontological assessment, habitat mapping, and a raptor nesting habitat assessment within one mile of the site. No foxes were found, but many other animals were captured. Check out some of the great nighttime (and daytime!) photos captured.
This is what one of our camera stations looked like.
We didn’t find any kit foxes, but we did capture some coyotes roaming the site.
And even some kangaroo rats, which we did not expect.
Of course, there were rabbits…
And ravens a plenty!
It didn’t take long for this loggerhead shrike (a state Species of Special Concern) to figure out that something fishy was going on.
The local cat figured it out there was free food!
As did the sheep dogs. Yum!
And when we say wildlife, we don’t just mean animals! (Luckily, they left the camera alone.)
Hey, is this thing on?
For more information about Rincon's biological resource services, download the flyer below.
ASTM has recently published a new standard for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), ASTM Standard E1527-13, which replaces ASTM E1527-05 as the industry guideline to conduct Phase I ESAs. Rather than create a new set of requirements, the basic purpose of the new E1527-13 standard was to clarify some ambiguous language and guidance in the E1527-05 standard. These changes will have little impact on due diligence professionals that were already conducting Phase I ESAs “correctly” (in accordance with the actual intent of the language). However, these changes will have an impact on the improved quality of Phase I ESAs.
The U.S. EPA is expected to publish an updated/amended final rule formally referencing this new standard in the upcoming months. According to online resources such as EDR’s webinars presented by ASTM committee members, E1527-05 may continue to be formally referenced by the EPA in its updated/amended AAI (All Appropriate Inquires) rule, meaning that a consultant could conduct a Phase I to either standard and be in compliance with AAI.
In the meantime, Rincon has updated its reports and is beginning to educate clients as to the new language they may see in our reports. This article is intended to highlight the key changes in the new standard and clarify common misconceptions. The following is a brief summary of changes with the new ASTM E1527-13 standard.
Definitions: The new standard attempts to clarify previous ambiguities by introducing a new term, Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC), and updating the definitions of Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) and Historic Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC).
• A CREC is a past release that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority but is subject to some form of control, such as a property use restriction or engineering control. The classification of CREC will be helpful for identifying post-acquisition continuing obligations for property owners (i.e., site use limitations, ensuring that the control is implemented as required by the regulatory agency).
• An HREC is a past release that has been addressed and meets unrestricted land use criteria, for which no controls are required. Note that the Environmental Professional must determine if the HREC is actually a REC at the time of the Phase I: if there has been a change in regulatory criteria since the time of the release, and the EP believes that the impact would no longer qualify for unrestricted land use (i.e., a regulatory agency may now require a control), it may fall under the definition of an REC or CREC.
• The definition of REC was slightly modified and simplified but has not substantially changed.
File Reviews: The new standard states that if the site or adjacent properties are listed in standard record sources, “pertinent regulatory files and/or records associated with the listing should be reviewed” (emphasis added) to determine if a recognized environmental condition (REC), historical recognized environmental condition (HREC), or de minimis condition exists at the subject property in connection with the listing. Note that the standard does not say “shall” be reviewed; it goes on to say that instead of reviewing actual regulatory files (e.g., driving to the state agency to review hardcopy files), the EP may seek alternative sources of information (e.g., online records, interviews with regulatory agency personnel). If a regulatory file review is not conducted, the EP is required to explain the justification in the report.
Vapor Migration: The standard is clarified to reference vapor migration as one of the forms of movement of hazardous substances or petroleum products in the subsurface. Consultants are required to assess the potential for a REC at the subject property in connection with vapor migration, similarly to how we already assess for impacts from groundwater migration or impacts to soil. A distinction must be made between vapor migration and vapor intrusion; there is no requirement to assess vapor intrusion (i.e., into a building). Even though the word “vapor” does not appear in the E1527-05 standard, EPs were supposed to always be assessing vapor migration. A note in the new standard states that vapor migration is described in the ASTM standard E2600 for Vapor Encroachment Screens, but that there is no requirement to use that standard to comply with ASTM. Although vapor encroachment screens (VESs) are not included in the new standard, they can be requested by the Client and may be recommended by the consultant based on the results of the Phase I ESA. Look for our upcoming white paper regarding the ASTM VES standard E2600 to learn more about vapor encroachment.
Moving forward, the important next steps for property acquisition professionals will be to:
• Familiarize yourself with the new ASTM standard
• Discuss the changes with your current environmental due diligence consultant
• Coordinate with your lending institution about their specific Phase I ESA requirements
• Coordinate with grant and other loan sources about their specific Phase I ESA requirements
• Sharing suggestions and feedback with other property acquisition professionals and the environmental consultant community
Additionally, these changes and others can be discussed further with our Phase I ESA Due Diligence Professionals. Click the buttons below to download our Site Assessment flyer or to request a quote.