Welcome to the Industrial Stormwater Program, March 2013 Newsletter! 

In this issue:

• Featured Article: 2012 Annual Report Due March 31, 2013
  
• From the Compliance Program Desk: What’s New And What’s Coming Up
• Your “Year 2” Of Sampling Requirements Is Over.  Do You Know What To Do Next?
• "Year 2" Data At A Glance 
• Industrial Stormwater Survey Results Part 2 of 3: Comments From No Exposure Facilities 
• Consider Safer Alternatives To Coal Tar-based Sealcoats

Featured article: 2012 Annual Report Due March 31, 2013

Thank you for everyone who has submitted their 2012 annual report already!  For the rest of you: the 2012 Annual Report is due March 31, 2013.  As you have already heard via email and through the Annual Report mailing, the Industrial Stormwater Program created the Annual Report to be submittable electronically.  Click here to access the fill-inable PDF 2012 Annual Report.  As of March 1, 2013, 98% of all received annual reports have been submitted electronically.  Comments received so far been helpful; program staff have heard that more room is needed to write in results for the monthly inspections question.  Next year’s annual report will be modified to accommodate this request. 

Have questions?  need a paper copy version of the annual report mailed to you?  Email Melissa Wenzel (melissa.wenzel@state.mn.us) or Mary West (mary.west@state.mn.us) as a first option, and call the Stormwater Hotline as a second option: 651-757-2119 or 800-657-3804 (non-metro only). 

2012 Annual Fee Invoices Due March 2, 2013

The 2012 Annual Fee Invoices were mailed February 1, 2013 and are due by March 2, 2013. Send a check with the invoice mailed to your facility or pay by e-Check, VISA or MasterCard at:  www.pca.state.mn.us/pay-online. Questions about the invoice?  Contact the Fee Coordinator at fees.pca@state.mn.us

From the Compliance Program Desk: What’s New And What’s Coming Up

The Industrial Stormwater Program frequently receives requests for an update on Water Quality compliance program’s efforts. Much of this interest resulted from a recent ISW program survey sent to permit holders and No Exposure Certifiers regarding the current and future Industrial Stormwater Permit and our outreach and education efforts.  

But, first a few highlights from the past year.   Most Permittees are now into their monitoring phase and we are seeing some very good results from facilities that have implemented best management practices (BMPs). We’re also noting that sites with elevated benchmarks have shown a lot of interest in ways they can improve the quality of their discharge.  We have worked with the University of Minnesota to develop new training to support that interest; check out the ISW web page for links to more help and resources. We have also found that many facilities are now more aware of “stormwater” at their facilities  and are interested in improving the quality of stormwater that is outside of the their permit. Many of the same practices and web links can provide information regarding these areas. 

The ISW program has been around since late 1990s; many of you may recall during the issuance of the ISW permit in 2009 -2010 that there was a fair amount of concern about the agency’s abilities to ensure a fair playing field.  Some were concerned about those who needed to comply with the ISW permit and protect our state’s surface waters would be pursued to obtain proper permit coverage.  

We tried to address those concerns when the new permit was re-invigorated in 2010: phased monitoring schedules, updated best management practices and a robust program web site to help facilities understand their stormwater requirements.  The web site is now one of the most active and most utilized in the MPCA. 

Surprisingly, despite all of this outreach, some facilities have failed to obtain permit coverage. While many facilities have been reaching out to us for compliance assistance, we have also been reaching out to prompt facilities to obtain permits where they did not have one.  Sometimes this comes as a result of an inspection that illuminates the facility needs proper coverage or that a “no exposure” facility does not meet that exclusion and needs to properly seek permit coverage.  We have also found facilities that have historically had ISW permits and failed to re-apply for ISW permit coverage since the 2010 permit issuance.  And the MPCA is also contacting facilities that failed to re-apply for coverage in a timely manner.  There are many ways to prompt these facilities into compliance using a variety of tools (including letters that sometimes these letters includes penalties). Often, portions of penalties may be forgiven if compliance is achieved. 

All of these scenarios play a role in leveling the playing field. They also play a role in helping our surface waters by protecting them with the permit’s BMPs.   We hope that by continuing to remind facilities of the requirements to obtain permits, and to follow them by submitting monitoring results and annual reports, we will continue to see improvements in our states water quality, which is after all, the end goal. 

You show us in many ways how much you’re interested and engaged in protecting our state’s natural resources by complying with your industrial stormwater permit. And it’s gratifying that you’re asking us for more information on how you can minimize your stormwater impacts.  I want to thank you all for the interest you have shown in protecting and improving Minnesota’s surface waters. Keep up the good work!

Ken Moon, Supervisor, WQ Compliance and Enforcement

Your “Year 2” Of Sampling Requirements Is Over.  Do You Know What To Do Next?

For those who have completed your “Year 2” of sampling requirements and have viewed your Permit Information Access “Monitoring Calendar,” you should have noticed that it’s been updated to reflect whether or not you have sampling requirements in “Year 4.”  If you do have “Year 4” sampling requirements, your Stormwater Monitoring Reports have been updated to reflect which parameters you have to sample for in “Year 4.”

In addition to updating each facility’s Monitoring Calendar, the Industrial Stormwater Program sends emails to those for whom we have a valid email address and a letter to those for whom we don’t.  In addition, the Industrial Stormwater Program created an online PowerPoint Presentation with integrated voice-over narration to help Permittees understand what to do next.  Most recently, the program has created an overview guidance document called:  “Requirements for benchmark monitoring” that gives a high-level, 5-year overview of benchmark monitoring requirements and other tips and suggestions for successful sampling requirements. 

72% of Permittees who have completed "Year 2" sampling requirements have "Year 4" sampling requirements, and for most Permittees, their "Year 4" start sometime in 2013.  If you have “Year 4” sampling requirements, be sure to know when you have to start your “Year 4” sampling requirements, what pollutants you have to sample for, and, if you don’t have one already, a plan in place to improve your sampling results.  For more information, check out the “Step 12: Modify/add new BMPs, if needed” Step to Compliance.

"Year 2" Data At A Glance

The first “Year 2” benchmark sample was collected in April 2011.  In the last year and a half of results, we’ve noticed:

• Despite dry conditions since sampling requirements began, a number of Permittees have been able to collect stormwater samples
• The last two winters have produced a number of potential sampling events due to rain and snow-melt conditions
• Many Permittees have implemented new or different Best Management Practices at their facility during their “Year 2” of sampling requirements to try to help the “Year 2” averages
• At a glance, here are the most common pollutant parameters Permittees sampled for, the Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit Benchmark Values, the average value for all results submitted and the number of samples for that average. 

 Note: the average value is based on total results submitted and not yearly averages. 

• Aluminum: benchmark value of .75 or 1/5 mg/L, average: 6.65 mg/L, 1075 samples
• Ammonia: benchmark value of 2.8 mg/L, average of .695 mg/L, 751 samples
• BOD5: benchmark value of 25 mg/L, average of 145 mg/L, 829 samples
• COD: benchmark value of 120 mg/L average of 249 mg/L, 1332 samples
• Copper: benchmark value of 0.028 mg/L, average of 0.17 mg/L, 553 samples
• Iron: benchmark value of 1.0 mg/L, average of 15.38 mg/L, 1500 samples
• Lead: benchmark value of 0.164 mg/L, average of 0.174 mg/L, 694 samples
• pH: benchmark value of 6-9, average of 7.76, 427 samples
• Phosphorus: benchmark value of 1.0 mg/L, average of 1.36 mg/L, 264 samples
• Total Suspended Solids: benchmark value of 65 or 100 mg/L, average of 191.8 mg/L, 4672 samples
• Zinc: benchmark value of 0.234 mg/L, average of 1.29 mg/L, 1112 samples

 To see your facility’s individual sample results, go to the “Benchmark and Effluent Monitoring Results” link on the facility’s Facility Information Menu page, available within the “Permit Information Access” tool. 

Industrial Stormwater Survey Results Part 2 of 3: Comments From No Exposure Facilities

When we polled facilities with No Exposure Certification about their use of MPCA’s Industrial Stormwater web site resources, more than half of the 650 respondents commented that they ‘Do not use online resources because we have No Exposure.’  However, the No Exposure Certification is much more than simply submitting the application!  The No Exposure conditions must be maintained until the current certification expires April 2015. 

Here are a few of the common reasons facilities thought they qualified (but were disqualified and lost their No Exposure Certification) and a few suggestions to address these situations.

Shelters are not storm-resistant

Storm-resistant shelters include completely roofed and walled structures and can include top-cover-only structures.  For top-cover-only structures, side coverings are not required as long as the stored material is not subject to any contact with stormwater such as berming the area where the activities or materials are or sloping the ground in a way that would prevent run-off of potential spills.

Properly covered/lidded containers, large roll-off type bins, and dumpsters can qualify as storm resistant shelters provided they:

1. Are not leaking or otherwise deteriorating;
2. Have bottom drain plugs to prevent ‘garbage juice’ from leaking out; and,
3. Have sturdy covers/lids that won’t break down in sunlight nor allow stormwater to enter

 Spills and leaks at on-site fueling stations

Lack of proper transfer of fuels is the most common reason a facility does not qualify for No Exposure Certification.  “Topping off” fuel tanks and leaking storage tanks are also considered fuel spills.

Properly managed on-site fueling  stations may meet No Exposure requirements provided:

1. The fueling area is under a storm-resistant, protective canopy or roof;
2. The fueling area is bermed to keep spills in and surrounding stormwater flows out; and
3. Dry cleanup methods for spills rather than washing the areas down are implemented

Spills and leaks while loading and unloading significant materials

Spill and leak concerns are not confined to on-site fueling stations, where and how significant materials are transferred from carrier to your facility also impacts your No Exposure Certification.

Properly managed loading and unloading operations can be achieved by conducted them within a storm-resistant shelter:

1. Trailer ends at docks are enclosed with overhangs or door skirts;
2. The loading area is raised more than 2 feet off the ground surface to prevent stormwater run-on, and the facility roof covers the loading area ; and
3. Material transfer areas take place on an impervious pad to enable easy collection of spilled materials

For further information or additional guidance, please refer to MPCA’s Fact Sheet No Exposure: Qualifying For, and Maintaining, the Exclusion, or contact Melissa Wenzel or Mary West.

Consider Safer Alternatives to Coal Tar-based Sealcoats

Thinking about maintenance of your facility grounds this summer?  If you are, MPCA staff suggest you consider applying safer products and by using people well-trained in applying those products.

Unless your pavement is in one of the 28 Minnesota cities which have banned it, the use of coal tar sealcoat is not regulated.  Nevertheless, MPCA is encouraging Minnesota businesses, homeowners and public agencies to stop using coal tar-based sealcoats on asphalt pavement they own or manage.  Doing so will reduce taxpayers’ pond sediment clean-up costs and hazards to human health due to high levels of harmful chemicals present in coal tar sealcoats.

There are safer alternatives which work equally well or better when properly applied.  MPCA staff have worked with pavement experts to develop guidance for property owners on the transition away from coal tar at www.pca.state.mn.us/ckkfkud.

In addition, many sealcoat contractors around the state have voluntarily signed a pledge to MPCA not to apply sealcoats containing coal tar in Minnesota.  Listings and interactive tools to help you find one of those pledged contractors are at www.pca.state.mn.us/ahx9qrk.

Reduce the impact of your summer lawn maintenance

Similar care about lawn-care products and how they are applied to lawns and turf grass will reduce unnecessary pollutant contamination of ponds and streams around your property.  The MPCA has helped develop training and certification of contractors on best lawn maintenance practices.  Listings of certified contractors and other information is available at www.pca.state.mn.us/bkzq42.

Program Contact Information:

• Website: www.pca.state.mn.us/industrialstormwater
• Monitoring Forms/Permit Information Access:  http://cf.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/isw/search.cfm
• Email the Program: iswprogram.pca@state.mn.us 
• Call the Stormwater Hotline: Call 651-757-2119 or 800-657-3804 (non-metro only)
• Permit Compliance/No Exposure:   Melissa Wenzel, 651-757-2816 or Mary West, 651-757-2818
• Engineering Questions: Todd Smith, 651-757-2732