May 19, 2014
Roger N. Mitchell, P.G.
Engineering Geologist
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Ground Water Protection Branch
2375 Northside Dr., Ste. 100
San Diego, CA 92108
Sent via email: Roger.Mitchell@waterboards.ca.gov
Re:
Comments and Recommendations Regarding Tentative Order No. R9-20140041 (Conditional Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements for Low Threat
Discharges in the San Diego Region)
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
The Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) represents approximately 55
manufacturing companies in the San Diego region. Our member companies come from
high tech, biotech, and heavy industry and together account for more than 50,000 jobs.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the above referenced tentative order.
Following are the key issues for which we would seek your consideration:
Application Requirements – Not all dischargers should have to file an NOI. NOIs should
not be required unless the general or specific conditions for a particular discharge state
that an NOI is required.
Authorization under a waiver should start upon submittal of the NOI unless otherwise
specified in the discharge’s general or specific conditions.
For the balance of this letter, our key point is that the requirement to submit an NOI is
unclear. NOIs should be required when the threshold trigger in the specific conditions
has been exceeded. Now, a NOI is required of all conditional waivers in the preamble,
is not included in the discharge general requirements, and may or may not be required
1330 Orange Avenue, Suite 100 • Coronado, California 92118 • (619) 522-9000
www.iea-sd.com
for the specific conditions. If not in the specific conditions, it is not required. The animal
waiver (condition 3) is a prime example of this. It is required in the preamble and in the
general conditions, but not in the specific conditions, which means it isn’t required for
small animal operations. The $455 fee may put horse stables out of business, and
although not really an industrial issue, sets an important precedent given there was no
dialogue with the regulated community. Small Animal operations need to return to the
language of the previous permit where they were required to comply with the BMPs and
prohibition, but did not require an NOI unless there is a complaint of if requested by the
Regional Board.
Following are specific comments regarding Waivers 1, 3, 5, and 10, which have been
identified as particularly important by our members.
Waiver No. 1 – Onsite Graywater Disposal Systems
a. Should have a minimum threshold
b. Rather than apply to any dischargers, it should apply to someone
discharging greater than a specific volume or servicing a business or
household with a threshold number of people
c. The volume should be greater than a single house or business, i.e.
discharges from households or businesses of more than 25 or 50 users,
with an equivalent associated volume
d. If the calculated volume of graywater is in excess of landscaping
requirements or exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, then an NOI
could be required, but we don’t think NOIs are applicable in all cases
Waiver No. 3 – Miscellaneous Low Threat Discharges
a. A NOI is not required for a specific discharge if it does not have a specific
threshold or it doesn’t exceed a specific
b. Discharges less than a specific threshold are automatically covered by the
waiver
c. The requirements for discharges from structural BMPs that require
infiltration should only apply to new BMPs installed after the effective date
of the waiver
d. The discharge procedures for discharges from utility vaults and
underground structures should be revised to be more consistent with the
existing NPODES permit requirements
e. Waiver No. 5 – Composting Facilities. Clarify that this waiver applies to
commercial composting facilities, not all composting activities.
f. Move the list of conditionally exempt composting activities into the waiver
from Appendix B
Waiver No. 10 – Discharges of Solid Wastes to Land
a. The requirements for the discharge/disposal of mulches and amendments
is written to apply too broadly. It appears that it would require the
submittal of an NOI for any application of mulch or amendment which is
unreasonable and unjustified. They do list some specific additives of
concern for mulches and amendments. If they regulate the application of
amendments and mulches (i.e., products, not waste) they should only
regulate those containing the additives of concern and specify that all
other applications are conditionally exempt from WDRs and waiver of
WDRs
b. The number of samples required to characterize soil in Table A should be
revised
c. Due to the variability of natural arsenic concentration in soil in San Diego,
the Tier 1 soil screening level in Table 1 for arsenic should be revised to
be the “site specific background concentration at the reuse site”, not a
single value (i.e., 3.5mg/kg)
Waiver No. 12
a. The waiver needs to clarify that it can be used even of the
discharge could be eligible for coverage under SWRCB order 2004004-DWQ
That concludes our comments regarding Tentative Order No. R9-2014-0041. Should
you have any questions or require any additional explanation of our concerns, please
feel free to contact me.
On behalf of our IEA members, thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Jack Monger
Executive Director