NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
GENERAL PERMIT FACT SHEET FOR
STORM WATER DISCHARGES
ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
NPDES NO. CAS000001

*The factsheet to the IGP was updated in January 2015 to correct
typographical errors. The deadline listed in Section I.D.13 (page 8)
and Section II.G.1 (page 27) of the factsheet for dischargers with
outfalls to ocean waters to develop and implement a monitoring
program in compliance with the California Ocean Plan model
monitoring provisions was corrected to July 1, 2015, which is the
deadline listed in finding 44 in the general order.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

i

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1
A.
Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1
B.
History ............................................................................................................................. 1
C.
Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts (Panel) ............................................................................. 2
D.
Summary of Significant Changes in this General Permit ................................................. 4
II. TECHNICAL RATIONALE FOR REQUIREMENTS IN THIS GENERAL PERMIT ............. 9
A.
Receiving General Permit Coverage ............................................................................... 9
B.
Discharge Prohibitions ................................................................................................... 14
C.
Non-Storm Water Discharges (NSWDs) ........................................................................ 14
D.
Effluent Limitations ........................................................................................................ 15
E.
Receiving Water Limitations and Water Quality Standards ........................................... 22
F.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ........................................................................... 22
G.
Discharges Subject to the California Ocean Plan .......................................................... 26
H.
Training Qualifications ................................................................................................... 27
I.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ......................................................... 29
J.
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ....................................................................... 42
K.
Exceedance Response Actions (ERAs) ........................................................................ 55
L.
Inactive Mining Operations ............................................................................................ 66
M.
Compliance Groups and Compliance Group Leaders ................................................... 66
N.
Annual Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 68
Annual Report ................................................................................................................ 68
O.
P.
Conditional Exclusion - No Exposure Certification (NEC) Requirements ...................... 68
Q.
Special Requirements - Plastic Materials ...................................................................... 69
R.
Regional Water Board Authorities ................................................................................. 70
S.
Special Conditions: Requirements for Dischargers Claiming the “No Discharge” Option in
the Notice of Non-Applicability ....................................................................................... 71
FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Example Waste Load Allocations Proposed Translation: Ballona Creek Estuary – Toxic Pollutants 23
FIGURE 2: Five Phases for Developing and Implementing an Industrial Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)
31
FIGURE 3: Compliance Determination Flowchart
45

TABLES

TABLE 1: Role-Specific Permit Requirements......................................................................................................... 28
TABLE 2: Example - Assessment of Potential Industrial Pollution Sources and Corresponding BMPs Summary . 32

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

ii

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
I. BACKGROUND
A. Purpose
The purpose of this Fact Sheet is to explain the legal requirements and technical
rationale that serve as the basis for the requirements of this Order 2014-0057-DWQ
(General Permit), adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board) on April 1, 2014. This General Permit regulates operators of facilities subject to
storm water permitting (Dischargers), that discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity (industrial storm water discharges). This General Permit replaces
Water Quality Order 97-03-DWQ. This Fact Sheet does not contain any independentlyenforceable requirements; the General Permit contains all of the actual requirements
applicable to Dischargers. In case of any conflict between the Fact Sheet and the
General Permit, the terms of the General Permit govern.
B. History
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)1 prohibits discharges from point sources to waters
of the United States, unless the discharges are in compliance with a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. (CWA § 301(a).) In 1987, the CWA
was amended to establish a framework for regulating municipal storm water discharges
and discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity (industrial storm water
discharges) under the NPDES program. (CWA § 402(p).) In 1990, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgated regulations, commonly
known as Phase I, establishing application requirements for storm water permits for
specified categories of industries. (40 C.F.R. § 122.26.) In 1992, U.S. EPA revised the
monitoring requirements for industrial storm water discharges. (40 C.F.R. §
122.44(i)(2), (4), (5).) In 1999, U.S. EPA adopted additional storm water regulations,
known as Phase II. (64 Fed. Reg. 68722.) The Phase II regulations provide for,
among other things, a conditional exclusion from NPDES permitting requirements for
industrial activities that have no exposure to storm water.
Industrial storm water discharges are regulated pursuant to CWA section 402(p)(3)(A).
This provision requires NPDES permits for industrial storm water discharges to
implement CWA section 301, which includes requirements for Dischargers to comply
with technology-based effluent limitations, and any more stringent water quality-based
limitations necessary to meet water quality standards. Technology-based effluent
limitations applicable to industrial activities are based on best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT) for conventional pollutants, and best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and non-conventional pollutants. (CWA §
301(b)(1)(A) and (2)(A).) To ensure compliance with water quality standards, NPDES
permits may also require a Discharger to implement best management practices
(BMPs). 40 Code of Federal Regulations section 122.44(k)(4) requires the use of BMPs
to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when numeric effluent limitations (NELs)
are infeasible. The State Water Board has concluded that it is infeasible to establish
1

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1970 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act or CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. All
further statutory references herein are to the CWA unless otherwise indicated.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

1

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
NELs for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity due to insufficient
information at the time of adoption of this General Permit.
On April 17, 1997, the State Water Board issued NPDES General Permit for Industrial
Storm Water Discharges, Excluding Construction Activities, Water Quality
Order 97-03-DWQ (previous permit). This General Permit, Order 2014-0057-DWQ
rescinds the previous permit and serves as the statewide general permit for industrial
storm water discharges. The State Water Board concludes that significant revisions to
the previous permit requirements are necessary for implementation, consistency and
objective enforcement. As discussed in this Fact Sheet, this General Permit requires
Dischargers to:


Eliminate unauthorized non-storm water discharges (NSWDs);



Develop and implement storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) that
include best management practices (BMPs);



Implement minimum BMPs, and advanced BMPs as necessary, to achieve
compliance with the effluent and receiving water limitations of this General Permit;



Conduct monitoring, including visual observations and analytical storm water
monitoring for indicator parameters;



Compare monitoring results for monitored parameters to applicable numeric action
levels (NALs) derived from the U.S. EPA 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (2008 MSGP) and other
industrial storm water discharge monitoring data collected in California;



Perform the appropriate Exceedance Response Actions (ERAs) when there are
exceedances of the NALs; and,



Certify and submit all permit-related compliance documents via the Storm Water
Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). Dischargers shall
certify and submit these documents which include, but are not limited to, Permit
Registration Documents (PRDs) including Notices of Intent (NOIs), No Exposure
Certifications (NECs), and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), as
well as Annual Reports, Notices of Termination (NOTs), Level 1 ERA Reports, and
Level 2 ERA Technical Reports.

C. Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts (Panel)
In 2005 and 2006, the State Water Board convened a Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts
(Panel) to address the feasibility of NELs in California’s storm water permits.
Specifically, the Panel was charged with answering the following questions:
Is it technically feasible to establish numeric effluent limitations, or
some other quantifiable limit, for inclusion in storm water permits?

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

2

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
How would such limitations or criteria be established, and what
information and data would be required? 2
The Panel was directed to answer these questions for industrial storm water discharge
general permits, construction storm water discharge general permits, and area-wide
municipal storm water discharge permits. The Panel was also directed to address both
technology-based and water quality based limitations and criteria.
In evaluating the establishment of numeric limitations and criteria, the Panel was
directed to consider all of the following:
 The ability of the State Water Board to establish appropriate objective
limitations or criteria;
 How compliance is to be determined;
 The ability of Dischargers and inspectors to monitor for compliance; and
 The technical and financial ability of Dischargers to comply with the limitations
or criteria.
Following an opportunity for public comment, the Panel identified several water quality
concerns, public process and program effectiveness issues. A summary of the Panel’s
recommendations regarding industrial storm water discharges follows:3
 Current data are inadequate; accordingly, the State Water Board should
improve monitoring requirements to collect useful data for establishing NALs
and NELs.
 Required parameters for further monitoring should be consistent with the type
of industrial activity (i.e., monitor for heavy metals when there is a reasonable
expectation that the industrial activity will contribute to increased heavy
metals concentrations in storm water).
 Insofar as possible, the use of California data (or national data applicable to
California) is preferred when setting NELs and NALs.
 Industrial facilities that do not discharge to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4s) should implement BMPs for their non-industrial exposure
(e.g., parking lots, roof runoff) similar to BMPs implemented by commercial
facilities in MS4 jurisdictions.

2

State Water Board Storm Water Panel of Experts, The Feasibility of Numeric Effluent Limits Applicable to Discharges of
Storm Water Associated with Municipal, Industrial and Construction Activities (June 19, 2006).
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/numeric/swpanel_final_report.pdf>.
[as of February 4, 2014].
3

See footnote 2.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

3

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
 In all cases, Dischargers should implement a suite of minimum BMPs,
including, but not limited to, good housekeeping practices, employee training,
and preventing exposure of materials to rain.
 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code categories are not a satisfactory
way of identifying industrial activities at any given site. The State Water
Board should develop an improved method of characterizing industrial
activities that will improve water quality in storm water.
 Recognizing that implementing the Panel’s suggested changes is a large
task, the State Water Board should set priorities for implementation of the
Panel’s suggested approach in order to achieve the greatest reduction of
pollutants statewide.
 Recognizing that an increasing number of industries have moved industrial
activities indoors to prevent storm water pollution, such facilities should be
granted regulatory relief from NALs and/or NELs , but should still be required
to comply with any applicable MS4 permit requirements.
 Recognizing the need for improved monitoring and reduction of pollutants in
industrial storm water discharges, the State Water Board should consider the
total economic impact of its requirements to not economically penalize
California industries when compared to industries outside of California.
With regard to the industrial activities component of its charge, the Panel limited its
focus to the question of whether sampling data can be used to derive technology-based
NELs. The Panel did not address other factors or approaches that may relate to the
task of determining technology- and water quality-based NELs consistent with the
regulations and law. Examples of these other factors are discussed in more detail in
this Fact Sheet. Additionally, in its final report the Panel did not clearly differentiate
between the role of numeric and non-numeric effluent limitations, nor did it consider
U.S. EPA procedures used to promulgate effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) in 40
Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Subchapter N (Subchapter N).
D. Summary of Significant Changes in this General Permit
The previous permit issued by the State Water Board on April 17, 1997, had been
administratively extended since 2002 until the adoption of this General Permit.
Significant revisions to the previous permit were necessary to update permit
requirements consistent with recent regulatory changes pertaining to industrial storm
water under the CWA. This General Permit differs from the previous permit in the
following areas:
1. Minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs)
This General Permit requires Dischargers to implement a set of minimum BMPs.
Implementation of the minimum BMPs, in combination with any advanced BMPs
(BMPs, collectively,) necessary to reduce or prevent pollutants in industrial storm
water discharges, serve as the basis for compliance with this General Permit’s
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

4

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
technology-based effluent limitations and water quality based receiving water
limitations. Although there is great variation in industrial activities and pollutant
sources between industrial sectors and, in some cases between operations within
the same industrial sector, the minimum BMPs specified in this General Permit
represent common practices that can be implemented by most facilities.
The previous permit did not require a minimum set of BMPs but rather allowed
Dischargers to consider which non-structural BMPs should be implemented and
which structural BMPs should be considered for implementation when non-structural
BMPs are ineffective.
This General Permit requires Dischargers to implement minimum BMPs (which are
mostly non-structural BMPs), and advanced BMPs (which are mostly structural
BMPs) when implementation of the minimum BMPs do not meet the requirements of
the General Permit. Advanced BMPs consists of treatment control BMPs, exposure
reduction BMPs, and storm water containment and discharge reduction BMPs.
BMPs that exceed the performance expectation of minimum BMPs are considered
advanced BMPs. Dischargers are encouraged to utilize advanced BMPs that
infiltrate or reuse storm water where feasible.
The minimum and advanced BMPs required in this General Permit are consistent
with U.S. EPA’s 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activity (2008 MSGP), guidance developed by the
California Stormwater Quality Association, and recommendations by Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) inspectors. Dischargers are required
to evaluate BMPs being implemented and determine an appropriate interval for the
implementation and inspection of these BMPs.
2. Conditional Exclusion - No Exposure Certification (NEC)
This General Permit applies U.S. EPA Phase II regulations regarding a conditional
exclusion for facilities that have no exposure of industrial activities and materials to
storm water. (40 C.F.R. § 122.26(g).) (The previous permit required light industries
to obtain coverage only if their activities were exposed to storm water.) This General
Permit implements current U.S. EPA rules allowing any type of industry to claim a
conditional exclusion. The NEC requires enrollment for coverage prior to
conditionally excluding a Discharger from a majority of this General Permit’s
requirements.
3. Electronic Reporting Requirements
This General Permit requires Dischargers to submit and certify all reports
electronically via SMARTS. The previous permit used a paper reporting process
with electronic reporting as an option.
4. Training Expectations and Roles
This General Permit requires that Dischargers arrange to have appropriately trained
personnel implementing this General Permit’s requirements at each facility. In
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

5

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
addition, if a Discharger’s facility enters Level 1 status, the Level 1 ERA Report must
be prepared by a Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner (QISP). All Action
Plans and Technical Reports required in Level 2 status must also be prepared by a
QISP.
Dischargers may appoint a staff person to complete the QISP training or may
contract with an outside QISP. QISP training is tailored to persons with a high
degree of technical knowledge and environmental experience. Although QISPs do
not need to be California licensed professional engineers, it may be necessary to
involve a California licensed professional engineer to perform certain aspects of the
Technical Reports.
5. Numeric Action Levels (NALs) and NAL Exceedances
This General Permit contains two types of NAL exceedances. An annual NAL
exceedance occurs when the average of all sampling results within a reporting year
for a single parameter (except pH) exceeds the applicable annual NAL. The annual
NALs are derived from, and function similarly to, the benchmark values provided in
the 2008 MSGP. Instantaneous maximum NALs target hot spots or episodic
discharges of pollutants. An instantaneous maximum NAL exceedance occurs when
two or more analytical results from samples taken for any parameter within a
reporting year exceed the applicable instantaneous maximum NAL value.
Instantaneous maximum NALs for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oil and
Grease (O&G) are based on previously gathered California industrial storm water
discharge monitoring data. The instantaneous maximum NAL for pH is derived from
the benchmark value provided in the 2008 MSGP.
6. Exceedance Response Actions (ERA)
This General Permit requires Dischargers to develop and implement ERAs, when an
annual NAL or instantaneous maximum NAL exceedance occurs during a reporting
year. The first time an annual NAL or instantaneous maximum NAL exceedance
occurs for any one parameter, a Discharger’s status is changed from Baseline to
Level 1 status, and the Discharger is required to evaluate and revise, as necessary,
its BMPs (with the assistance of a QISP) and submit a report prepared by a QISP.
The second time an annual NAL or instantaneous maximum NAL exceedance
occurs for the same parameter in a subsequent reporting year, the Discharger’s
status is changed from Level 1 to Level 2 status, and Dischargers are required to
submit a Level 2 ERA Action Plan and a Level 2 ERA Technical Report. Unless the
demonstration is not accepted by the State Water Board or a Regional Water Board,
the Discharger is not required to perform additional ERA requirements for the
parameter(s) involved if the Discharger demonstrates that:
a. Additional BMPs required to eliminate NAL exceedances are not technologically
available or economically practicable and achievable; or,
b. NAL exceedances are solely caused by non-industrial pollutant sources; or,

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

6

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
c. NAL exceedances are solely attributable to pollutants from natural background
sources.
Information supporting the above demonstrations must be included in QISPprepared Level 2 ERA Technical Reports.
7. CWA section 303(d) Impairment
This General Permit requires a Discharger to monitor additional parameters if the
discharge(s) from its facility contributes pollutants to receiving waters that are listed
as impaired for those pollutants (CWA section 303(d) listings). This General Permit
lists the receiving waters that are 303(d) listed as impaired for pollutants that are
likely to be associated with industrial storm water in Appendix 3. For example, if a
Discharger discharges to a water body that is listed as impaired for copper, and the
discharge(s) from its facility has the potential sources of copper, the Discharger must
add copper to the list of parameters to monitor in its storm water discharge.
8. Design Storm Standards for Treatment Control BMPs
This General Permit includes design storm standards for Dischargers implementing
treatment control BMPs. The design storm standards include both volume- and
flow-based criteria. Dischargers are not required to retrofit existing treatment control
BMPs unless required to meet the technology-based effluent limitations and
receiving water limitations in this General Permit.
9. Qualifying Storm Event (QSE)
This General Permit defines a QSE as a precipitation event that:
a. Produces a discharge for at least one drainage area; and,
b. Is preceded by 48 hours with no discharge from any drainage area.
The definition above differs from the definition in the previous permit, resulting in an
increase number of QSEs eligible for sample collection. Therefore, most
Dischargers will be able to collect the required number of samples, regardless of
their facility location.
10. Sampling Protocols
This General Permit requires Dischargers to collect samples during scheduled
facility operating hours from each drainage location within four hours of: (1) the start
of the discharge from a QSE occurring during scheduled facility operating hours, or
(2) the start of scheduled facility operating hours if the QSE occurred in the previous
twelve (12) hours. The benefits of this sampling protocol: (a) allows a more
reasonable amount of time to collect samples, (b) increases the likelihood for
samples collected at discharge locations to be representative of the drainage area
discharge characteristics, (c) increases the number of QSEs eligible for sample
collection, and, (d) reduces the likelihood of Dischargers collecting samples with
short-term concentration spikes.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

7

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
The previous permit required that Dischargers collect grab samples during the first
hour of discharge that commenced during scheduled facility operating hours. These
sample collection requirements were widely considered to be too rigid and out of
step with other states’ sample collection requirements. Since many storm events
begin in the evening or early morning hours, numerous opportunities to collect
samples were lost because Dischargers could not obtain samples during the first
hour of discharge. Dischargers with facilities that have multiple discharge locations
had difficulties collecting samples within such a short timeframe therefore affecting
data quality.
11. Sampling Frequency
This General Permit increases the sampling frequency by requiring the Discharger to
collect and analyze storm water samples from each discharge location for two (2)
QSEs within the first half of each reporting year (July 1 to December 31), and two (2)
QSEs within the second half of each reporting year (January 1 to June 30). The
increased sampling, compared to the previous permit’s two samples during the wet
season, is consistent with the 2008 MSGP and other states’ permit requirements
and will improve compliance determination with this General Permit. The State
Water Board expects that the elimination of the wet season sampling requirements
will increase the number of possible QSEs eligible for monitoring.
12. Compliance Groups
To allow industrial facilities to efficiently share knowledge, skills and resources
towards achieving General Permit compliance, this General Permit allows the
formation of Compliance Groups and Compliance Group Leaders. Dischargers
participating in a Compliance Group (Compliance Group Participants) are
collectively required to sample twice a year. Compliance Group Leaders are
required to be approved through the State Water Board-approved training program
process, inspect each facility once within each reporting year, and prepare Level 1
and Level 2 ERA reports as necessary. The Compliance Group option is described
in more detail in General Permit section XIV and in this Fact Sheet in the Section
titled “Compliance Groups.”
13. Discharges to Ocean Waters
This General Permit requires Dischargers with ocean-discharging outfalls subject to
model monitoring provisions of the California Ocean Plan to develop and implement
a monitoring plan in compliance with those provisions and any additional monitoring
requirements established pursuant to Water Code section 13383. Dischargers who
have not developed and implemented a monitoring program in compliance with the
California Ocean Plan model monitoring provisions by July 1, 2015 or seven (7)
days prior to commencing operations, whichever is later, are ineligible to obtain
coverage under this General Permit.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

8

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
II. TECHNICAL RATIONALE FOR REQUIREMENTS IN THIS GENERAL PERMIT
A. Receiving General Permit Coverage
1. This General Permit provides regulatory coverage for new and existing industrial
storm water discharges and authorized NSWDs from:
a. Facilities required by federal regulations to obtain an NPDES permit;
b. Facilities designated by the Regional Water Boards to obtain an NPDES permit;
and,
c. Facilities directed by the Regional Water Boards to obtain coverage specifically
under this General Permit. The Regional Water Board typically directs a
Discharger to change General Permit coverage under two circumstances:
(1) switch from an individual NPDES permit to this General Permit, or
(2) switch from the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction And Land Disturbance Activities, (Order 20090009-DWQ, NPDES No CAS000002 (to this General Permit for long-term
construction related activities that are similar to industrial activities (e.g. concrete
batch plants).
40 Code of Federal Regulations section 122.26(b)(14) defines "storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity" and describes the types of facilities
subject to permitting (primarily by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code).
This General Permit provides regulatory coverage for all facilities with industrial
activities described in Attachment A where the covered industrial activity is the
Discharger’s primary industrial activity. In some instances, a Discharger may have
more than one primary industrial activity occurring at a facility.
The 1987 SIC manual uses the term “establishment” to determine the
primary economic activity of a facility. The manual instructs that where
distinct and separate economic activities are performed at a single location,
each activity should be treated as a separate establishment (and,
therefore, separate primary activity). For example, the United States Navy
(primary SIC code 9711) may conduct industrial activities subject to
permitting under this General Permit, such as landfill operations (SIC code
4953), ship and boat building and repair (SIC code 3731, and flying field
operations (SIC code 4581).
The SIC manual also discusses “auxiliary” functions of establishments.
Auxiliary functions provide management or support services to the
establishment. Examples of auxiliary functions are warehouses and
storage facilities for the establishment’s own materials, maintenance and
repair shops of the establishment’s own machinery, automotive repair
shops or storage garages of the establishment’s own vehicles,
administrative offices, research, development, field engineering support,
and testing conducted for the establishment. When auxiliary functions are
performed at physically separate facilities from the establishment they
serve, they generally are not subject to General Permit coverage. If
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

9

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
auxiliary functions are performed at the same physical location as the
establishment, then they are subject to General Permit coverage if they are
associated with industrial activities.
This clarification does not change the scope of which facilities are subject to
permitting relative to the 1997 IGP. The 1997 IGP Fact Sheet had used the term
“auxiliary” to describe a facility’s separate primary activities, which has caused
confusion.
In 1997, the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) was
published, replacing the SIC code system. The U.S. EPA has indicated that it
intends to incorporate the NAICS codes into the federal storm water regulations but
has not done so yet. The State Water Board recognizes that many Dischargers in
newer industries were not included in the 1987 SIC code manual and may have
difficulty determining their SIC code information. To address this transition,
SMARTS has been modified to accept both SIC codes and NAICS codes, and
NAICS codes are automatically translated into SIC codes. There may be instances
of conflict between SIC and NAICS codes. The use of NAICS codes shall not
expand or reduce the types of industries subject to this General Permit as compared
to the SIC codes listed in the General Permit. State Water Board staff will work
closely with the applicant to resolve these conflicts in SMARTS as they are
identified. Dischargers should be aware that the use of an NAICS code which
results in failure to submit any of the required PRDs under this General Permit
remains a violation of the terms of this General Permit.
The facilities included in category one of Attachment A (facilities subject to
Subchapter N) are subject to storm water ELGs that are incorporated into the
requirements of this General Permit. Dischargers whose facilities are included in
this category must examine the appropriate federal ELGs to determine the
applicability of those guidelines. This General Permit contains additional
requirements (Section XI.D) that apply only to facilities with storm water ELGs.
2. Types of Discharges Not Covered by this General Permit
a. Discharges from construction and land disturbance activities that are subject to
the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction
Activity (Construction General Permit).
b. Discharges covered by an individual or general storm water NPDES permit.
Some industrial storm water discharges may be regulated by other individual or
general NPDES permits issued by the State Water Board or the Regional Water
Boards (Water Boards, collectively,). This General Permit shall not regulate
these discharges. When the individual or general NPDES permits for such
discharges expire, the Water Boards may authorize coverage under this General
Permit or another general NPDES permit, or may issue a new individual NPDES
permit consistent with the federal and state storm water regulations. Interested
parties may request that the State Water Board or appropriate Regional Water
Board issue individual or general NPDES permits for specific discharges that, in
their view are not properly regulated through this General Permit. General
permits may be issued for a particular industrial group or watershed area which
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

10

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
would supersede this General Permit. To date, two Regional Water Board have
issued such permits:
i.

The Lahontan Regional Water Board has adopted an NPDES permit and
general Waste Discharge Requirements to regulate discharges from marinas
and maintenance dredging (Regional Water Board Order R6T-2005-0015 NPDES Permit No. CAG616003) in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit.

ii.

The Santa Ana Regional Water Board adopted the Sector Specific General
Permit for Stormwater Runoff Associated with Industrial Activities from Scrap
Metal Recycling Facilities within the Santa Ana Region, Order R8-2012-0012,
NPDES Permit No. CAG 618001 (Scrap Metal Recycling Permit). The Scrap
Metal Recycling Permit is applicable to facilities within the Santa Ana Region
that are listed under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 5093 and
engaged in the following types of activities: (1) automotive wrecking for scrapwholesale (this category does not include facilities engaged in automobile
dismantling for the primary purpose of selling second hard parts); (2) iron and
steel scrap - wholesale; (3) junk and scrap metal - wholesale; (4) metal waste
and scrap - wholesale; and (5) non-ferrous metals scrap - wholesale. Other
types of facilities listed under SIC Code 5093 and engaged in waste recycling
are not required to get coverage under the Scrap Metal Recycling Permit. A
list of covered facilities as of February 8, 2011 was included in Attachment A
of the Scrap Metal Recycling Permit.

c. Discharges that the Regional Water Boards determine to be ineligible for
coverage under this General Permit. In such cases, a Regional Water Board will
require the discharges be covered by another individual or general NPDES
permit. The applicability of this General Permit to such discharges is terminated
when the discharge is subject to another individual or general NPDES permit.
d. Discharges that do not enter waters of the United States. These include:
i.

Discharges to municipal separate sanitary sewer systems;

ii.

Discharges to evaporation ponds, discharges to percolation ponds, and/or
any other methods used to retain and prevent industrial storm water
discharges from entering waters of the United States;

iii.

Discharges to combined sewer systems. In California, the only major
combined sewer systems are located in San Francisco and downtown
Sacramento. Dischargers who believe they discharge into a combined sewer
system should contact the local Regional Water Board to verify discharge
location; and,

iv.

Dischargers Claiming the “No Discharge” Option in the Notice of NonApplicability (NONA) (Fact Sheet Section II.S).

e. Discharges from mining operations or oil and gas facilities composed entirely of
flows that are from conveyances or systems of conveyances used for collecting
and conveying precipitation runoff and do not come into contact with any
overburden, raw materials, intermediate products, finished products, by-products,
or waste products located at the facility. (33 U.S.C. § 1342(l)(2).)
f. Discharges from facilities on Tribal Lands regulated by U.S. EPA.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

11

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
3. Obtaining General Permit Coverage (Section II of this General Permit)
The State Water Board has developed the SMARTS online database system to
handle registration and reporting under this General Permit. More information
regarding SMARTS and access to the database is available online at
https://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov. The State Water Board has determined that all
documents related to general storm water enrollment and compliance must be
certified and submitted via SMARTS by Dischargers.
This General Permit requires all Dischargers to electronically certify and submit
PRDs via SMARTS to obtain: (1) regulatory coverage, or (2) to certify that there are
no industrial activities exposed to storm water at the facility and obtain regulatory
coverage under the NEC provision of this General Permit. Facilities that were
eligible to self-certify no exposure under the previous permit (see category 10 in
Attachment 1 of the previous permit) are required to certify and submit via SMARTS
PRDs for NOI coverage under this General Permit by July 1, 2015 or for NEC
coverage by October 1, 2015. The Water Board is estimating that 10,000 – 30,000
Dischargers may be registering for NOI or NEC coverage under this General Permit.
Separate registration deadlines, one for NOI coverage and one for NEC coverage,
provides Dischargers better assistance from Storm Water Helpdesk and staff.
Dischargers shall electronically certify and submit the PRDs via SMARTS for each
individual facility. This requirement is intended to establish a clear accounting of the
name, address, and contact information for each Discharger, as well as a description
of each Discharger’s facility.
The Water Boards recognize that certain information pertaining to an industrial
facility may be confidential. Many Stakeholders were asking for clarification on the
process the Water Boards would use to manage confidential information or the
process Dischargers could use to redact such information. Dischargers may redact
trade secrets information from required submittals (Section II.B.3.d). Dischargers
are required to include a general description of the redacted information and the
basis for the redaction. Dischargers are still required to submit complete and unredacted versions of the information to the Water Boards within 30 days, however
these versions should be clearly labeled “CONFIDENTIAL” so that the confidentiality
of these documents is clear to Regional Water Board staff, even when there is a
change in staff. This General Permit requires that all information provided to the
Water Boards by the Discharger comply with the Homeland Security Act and other
federal law that addresses security in the United States.
All Dischargers who certify and submit PRDs via SMARTS for NOI coverage on or
after July 1, 2015 or for NEC coverage on or after October 1, 2015, shall
immediately comply with the provisions in this General Permit.
4. General Permit Coverage for Landfills
This General Permit covers storm water discharges from landfills, land application
sites, and open dumps that receive or have received industrial waste from any
facility covered by this General Permit. Industrial storm water discharges from these
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

12

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
facilities must be covered by this General Permit unless (1) they are already covered
by another NPDES permit, or (2) the Regional Water Board has determined that an
NPDES permit is not required because the site has been stabilized or required
closure activities have been completed.
In most cases, it is appropriate for new landfill construction or final closure to be
covered by the Construction General Permit, rather than this General Permit.
Questions have arisen as to what constitutes new landfill construction at an existing
landfill versus the normal planned expansion of a landfill. Similarly, questions have
arisen about the type of closure activities that may be subject to the Construction
General Permit versus the normal closure of “cells” that occurs during continued
landfill operations and are not subject to the Construction General Permit. Other
questions such as whether temporary or permanent newly graded/paved roads
disturbing greater than one acre at a landfill are subject to the Construction General
Permit. Landfill Dischargers have asked for clarity regarding these questions. The
previous permit required Dischargers to contact the Regional Water Boards to
determine permit appropriateness. Site specific circumstances continue to require
Dischargers to contact Regional Water Boards for final determinations.
Based upon the State Water Board’s storm water program history, there are only a
handful of instances where an operating landfill has been simultaneously subject to
both the construction and industrial permitting requirements. Typically a landfill is
subject to the construction permitting requirements during the time the landfill is
initially constructed and prior to operation. A landfill is subject to the industrial
permitting requirements during landfill operations, and subject to the construction
permitting requirements during final landfill closure activities.
Once a landfill begins operations, continued expansion or closure of incremental
landfill cells is authorized under the industrial permitting requirements since these
are normal aspects of landfill operations. These expansion/closure activities occur
within a limited timeframe (often taking less than 90 days from beginning to end) and
are not separately subject to additional local approval (e.g., a new building permit).
Any construction or demolition of temporary non-impervious roads directly related to
landfill operations are subject to the industrial permitting requirements.
Construction or closure of a separate section of the landfill that is either subject to
additional permitting by the local authorities and/or lasts more than 90 days requires
coverage under the Construction General Permit. Construction of permanent facility
structures such as buildings and impervious parking lots or roads that disturb greater
than one acre are also subject to the Construction General Permit. (Permanent
facility structures are defined as any structural improvements designed to remain
until the landfill is closed.)
Site specific circumstances such as proximity to nearby waterways, extent of
activities, pollutants of concern, and other considerations can impact any decision as
to whether a particular activity is to be regulated under this General Permit or the
Construction General Permit. Regional Water Boards will continue to exercise their
discretion as necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving water(s).
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

13

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
5. General Permit Coverage for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s)
Section 1068 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
exempted municipal agencies serving populations of less than 100,000 from Phase I
permit requirements other than sanitary landfills, power plants, and airports facilities.
U.S. EPA’s Phase II regulations eliminated the above exemption as of
March 10, 2003. All facilities in Attachment A of this General Permit that are
operated by a small municipal agency are subject to NPDES storm water permitting
requirements and this General Permit.
6. Changes to General Permit Coverage
Dischargers who no longer operate a facility required to be covered under this
General Permit (either NOI or NEC coverage) are required to electronically certify
and submit via SMARTS a Notice of Termination (NOT). An NOT is required when
there is a change in ownership of the industrial activities subject to permitting or
when industrial activities subject to permitting are permanently discontinued by the
Discharger at the site. When terminating NOI coverage, Dischargers may only
submit an NOT once all exposure of industrial materials and equipment have been
eliminated. Dischargers may not submit NOTs for temporary or seasonal facility
closures. The General Permit requires Dischargers to implement appropriate BMPs
to reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges during the temporary
facility closure.
This General Permit allows Dischargers to change General Permit coverage, as
appropriate, from NOI coverage to NEC coverage or from NEC coverage to NOI
coverage.
B. Discharge Prohibitions
This General Permit covers industrial storm water discharges and authorized NSWDs
from industrial facilities and prohibits any discharge of materials other than storm water
and authorized NSWDs (Section III and Section IV of this General Permit). It is a
violation of this General Permit to discharge hazardous substances in storm water in
excess of the reportable quantities established in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
sections 117.3 and 302.4.
The State Water Board is authorized, under Water Code section 13377, to issue
NPDES permits which apply and ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the
CWA, and any more stringent limitations necessary to implement water quality control
plans, protect beneficial uses, and prevent nuisance.
C. Non-Storm Water Discharges (NSWDs)
Unauthorized NSWDs can be generated from various pollutant sources. Depending
upon their quantity and location where generated, unauthorized NSWDs can discharge
to the storm drain system during dry weather as well as during a storm event
(comingled with storm water discharge). These NSWDs can consist of, but are not
limited to; (1) waters generated by the rinsing or washing of vehicles, equipment,
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

14

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
buildings, or pavement, or (2) fluid, particulate or solid materials that have spilled,
leaked, or been disposed of improperly.
Some NSWDs are not directly related to industrial activities and normally discharge
minimal pollutants when properly managed. Section IV of this General Permit provides
a limited list of NSWDs that are authorized if Dischargers implement BMPs to prevent
contact with industrial materials prior to discharge. The list in Section IV is similar to the
list provided in the 2008 MSGP but does not include pavement and external building
surfaces washing without detergents. These two items are not included because the
Discharger is responsible to reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges from
paved areas and buildings associated with industrial activities. Since industrial
materials and non-industrial material likely co-exist, the washing of paved areas and
external building surfaces may result in discharges of pollutants associated with
industrial activities. In addition, washing activities generally occur during dry-weather
periods when receiving water flows are lower than wet-weather periods. Wash waters
are likely to discharge in higher concentrations than would occur if these pollutants were
naturally discharged during a storm event. The discharge of high concentration wash
water during a time of dry-weather flows is inconsistent with the goal of protecting
receiving waters. These discharges are, therefore, considered unauthorized NSWDs.
Similar to the 2008 MSGP, firefighting related discharges are not subject to this General
Permit.
A major required element of the SWPPP is the identification and measures for
elimination of unauthorized NSWDs. Unauthorized NSWDs can contribute a significant
pollutant load to receiving waters. Measures to control spills, leakage, and dumping can
often be addressed through BMPs. This General Permit’s BMP requirements for
NSWDs remain essentially unchanged from the previous permit other than the
increased frequency of required visual observations from quarterly to monthly. See
Section XI.A.1 of this General Permit.
D. Effluent Limitations
1. Technology-Based and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C) requires that discharges from existing facilities must, at a
minimum, comply with technology-based effluent limitations based on the
technological capability of Dischargers to control pollutants in their discharges.
Discharges must also comply with any more stringent water quality-based limitations
necessary to meet water quality standards in accordance with CWA Section
301(b)(1)(C). Water quality-based limitations are discussed in Section E of this Fact
Sheet titled “Receiving Water Limitations.” Both technology-based effluent
limitations and water quality-based limitations are implemented through NPDES
permits. (CWA sections 301(a) and (b).)
2. Types of Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
All NPDES permits are required to contain technology-based effluent limitations
(TBELs). (40 C.F.R. §§122.44(a)(1) and 125.3.) TBELs may consist of effluent
limitations guidelines (ELGs) established by U.S. EPA through regulation, or may be
developed using best professional judgment on a case-by-case basis.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

15

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
The CWA sets forth standards for TBELs based on the type of pollutant or the type
of facility/source involved. The CWA establishes two levels of pollution control for
existing sources. For the first level, existing sources that discharge pollutants
directly to receiving waters were initially subject to effluent limitations based on the
“best practicable control technology currently available” (BPT). (33 U.S.C. §
1314(b)(1)(B).) BPT applies to all pollutants. For the second level, existing sources
that discharge conventional pollutants are subject to effluent limitations based on the
“best conventional pollutant control technology” (BCT). (33 U.S.C. §1314(b)(4)(A);
see also 40 C.F.R. §401.16 (list of conventional pollutants).) Also for the second
level, other existing sources that discharge toxic pollutants or “nonconventional”
pollutants (“nonconventional” pollutants are pollutants that are neither “toxic” nor
“conventional”) are subject to effluent limitations based on “best available technology
economically achievable” (BAT). (33 U.S.C. §1311(b)(2)(A); see also 40 C.F.R.
§401.15 (list of toxic pollutants).) The factors to be considered in establishing the
levels of these control technologies are specified in section 304(b) of the CWA and
in U.S. EPA’s regulations at 40 C.F.R. §125.3.
When establishing ELGs for an industrial category, U.S. EPA evaluates a wide
variety of technical factors to determine BPT, BCT, and BAT. U.S. EPA considers
the specific factors of an industry such as pollutant sources, industrial processes,
and the size and scale of operations. U.S. EPA evaluates the specific treatment,
structural, and operational source control BMPs available to reduce or prevent
pollutants in the discharges. The costs of implementing BMPs to address these
factors are weighed against their effectiveness and ability to protect water quality.
Factors such as industry economic viability, economies of scale, and retrofit costs
are also considered.
To date, U.S. EPA has: (1) not promulgated storm water ELGs for most industrial
categories, (2) not established NELs within all ELGs that have been promulgated,
and (3) exempted certain types of facilities within an industrial category from
complying with established ELGs. The feedlot category (40 Code of Federal
Regulations part 412) provides an example of several of these points. In that
instance, U.S. EPA did not establish numeric effluent limitations but instead: (1)
established a narrative effluent limitation requiring retention of all feedlot-related
runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm, and (2) limited application of the ELG to
feedlots with a minimum number of animals. U.S. EPA also recently promulgated
ELGs for the "Construction and Development (C&D)" industry, which included,
among many other limitations, conditional numeric effluent limitations. Though the
NELs in these ELGs were later stayed by U.S. EPA, the ELGs exempted
construction sites of less than 30 acres from complying with the established numeric
effluent limitations.
40 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Subchapter N (“Subchapter N”), includes
over 40 separate industrial categories where the U.S. EPA has established ELGs for
new and existing industrial wastewater discharges to surface waters, discharges to
publicly owned treatment works (pre-treatment standards), and storm water
discharges to surface waters. Generally, U.S. EPA has focused its efforts on the
development of ELGs for larger industries and those industries with the greatest
potential to pollute. In total, the 40 categories for which ELGs have been
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

16

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
established (not including construction) represent less than 10 percent of the types
of facilities subject to this General Permit. Additionally, most ELGs focus on
industrial process wastewater discharges and pre-treatment standards, and only 11
of the 40 categories establish numeric or narrative ELGs for industrial storm water
discharges. Those that do include ELGs for industrial storm water discharges
generally address storm water discharges that are generated from direct contact
with primary pollutant sources at the subject facilities, and not the totality of the
industrial storm water discharge from the facility, as the term “storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity” for this General Order is defined in the CWA. (40
C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14).) Where U.S. EPA has not issued effluent limitation
guidelines for an industry, the State Water Board is required to establish effluent
limitations for NPDES permits on a case-by-case basis based on best professional
judgment (BPJ). (33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(c)(2).) In this General
Permit, most of the TBELs are based on BPJ decision-making because no ELG
applies.
The TBELs in this General Permit represent the BPT (for conventional, toxic, and
non-conventional pollutants), BCT (for conventional pollutants), and BAT (for toxic
pollutants and non-conventional pollutants) levels of control for the applicable
pollutants. If U.S. EPA has not promulgated ELGs for an industry, or if a Discharger
is discharging a pollutant not covered by the otherwise applicable ELG, the State
Water Board is required to establish effluent limitations in NPDES permit limitations
based on best professional judgment. (33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. 125.3(c).)
This General Permit includes TBELS established on best professional judgment and
limitations based on storm water-specific ELGs listed in Attachment F of this General
Permit, where applicable.
3. Authority to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Limits in NPDES Permits
TBELs in this General Permit are based on best professional judgment and are nonnumeric (“narrative”) technology-based effluent limitations expressed as
requirements for implementation of effective BMPs. Federal regulations provide that
permits must include BMPs to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when
where “[n]umeric effluent limitations are infeasible.” 40 C.F.R. 122.44(k)(3).
Since 1977, courts have recognized that there are circumstances when numeric
effluent limitations are infeasible and have held that EPA may issue permits with
conditions (e.g., BMPs) designed to reduce the level of effluent discharges to
acceptable levels. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369
(D.C.Cir.1977).
U.S. EPA has also interpreted the CWA to allow BMPs to take the place of numeric
effluent limitations under certain circumstances. 40 C.F.R. §122.44(k), titled
“Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State
NPDES programs ...),” provides that permits may include BMPs to control or abate
the discharge of pollutants when: (1) “[a]uthorized under section 402(p) of the CWA
for the control of stormwater discharges”; or (2) “[n]umeric effluent limitations are
infeasible.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k).
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

17

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
In 2006, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the CWA does not
require U.S. EPA to set numeric limits where such limits are infeasible. (Citizens
Coal Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 447 F.3d 879, 89596 (6th Cir. 2006)). The Citizens Coal court cited to the statement in Waterkeeper
Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502 (2d Cir. 2005) that “site-specific BMPs are
effluent limitations under the CWA” in concluding that “the EPA's inclusion of
numeric and non-numeric limitations in the guideline for the coal remining
subcategory was a reasonable exercise of its authority under the CWA." (447 F.3d
at 896.) Additionally, the Citizen’s Coal court cited to Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.
v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400, 403 (D.C.Cir.1982) noting that “section 502(11) [of the CWA]
defines ‘effluent limitation’ as ‘any restriction’ on the amounts of pollutants
discharged, not just a numerical restriction.” NPDES permit writers have substantial
discretion to impose non-quantitative permit requirements pursuant to section
402(a)(1)), especially when the use of numeric limits is infeasible. (NRDC v. EPA,
822 F.2d 104, 122-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987); 40 C.F.R. 122.44(k)(3).)
4. Decision to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits in This General
Permit
It is infeasible for the State Water Board to develop numeric effluent limitations using
the best professional judgment approach due to lack of sufficient information.
Previous versions of this General Permit required Dischargers to sample their
industrial storm water discharges and report the results to the Regional Water
Boards. Dischargers were not required to submit this data online into a statewide
database; as a result, much of this data is not available for analysis. Moreover,
much of the data that are available for analysis are not of sufficient quality to make
conclusions or perform basic statistical tests.
The Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts, State Water Board staff, and many stakeholders
evaluated the available storm water data set and concluded that the information
provides limited value due to the limited pool of industrial facilities submitting data,
poor overall data quality, and extreme variance within the dataset, as described
below.
The poor quality of the existing data set is attributable a number of factors. For
example, the previous permits have required Dischargers to sample during the first
hour of discharge from two storm events a year. This sampling schedule was
designed to catch what was considered to represent the higher end of storm water
discharge concentrations for most parameters. The results from this type of
sampling were thought to be an indicator of whether or not additional BMPs would
be necessary. The sampling schedule was not designed, however, to estimate
pollutant discharge loading, or to characterize the impact of the discharge on the
receiving water. Doing so would normally require the use of more advanced
sampling protocols such as flow meters, continuous automatic sampling devices,
certified/trained sampling personnel, and other facility-specific considerations.
Furthermore, there is currently no data which details the relationship between the
BMPs implemented at each facility and the facility’s sampling results. The SWPPPs
required by the previous permits were not submitted to the Water Boards, but were
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

18

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
kept onsite by Dischargers. Due to the limited availability of quality sampling data
and "level of effort" information contained in SWPPPs, the State Water Board is
unable to exercise best professional judgment to make the connection between
effluent quality (sampling results) and the level of effort, costs, and performance of
the various technologies that is needed in order to express the TBELs in this
General Permit numerically, as NELs.
Some stakeholders have suggested that separating the data sets by industry type
would lead to more reliable data with which to develop NELs. Advocates of this
approach suggest that the variability of the data may be caused in part by the mixing
of data from different industrial categories. The State Water Board believes that the
variation is primarily due to storm intensity, duration, time of year, soil saturation or
some other factors. It is necessary to collect information related to those factors and
BMPs implemented in order to evaluate the variability attributable to those factors.
There is currently too large of an information gap to begin the process of developing
NELs for all industrial sectors not currently subject to ELGs.
The State Water Board has proposed NELs in past drafts of this General Permit. In
comments, many stakeholders have highlighted the difficulty of developing statewide
NELs that are applicable to all industry sectors, or even NELs that cover any specific
industry sectors. For example, stakeholders have commented that:
a. Background/ambient conditions in some hydrogeologic zones may contribute
pollutant loadings that would significantly contribute to, if not exceed, the NEL
values;
b. Some advanced treatment technologies have flow/volume limitations as well as
economy of scale issues for smaller facilities;
c. Treatment technologies that require that sheet flows be captured and conveyed
via discrete channels or basins may not only result in significant retrofit costs, but
may conflict with local ordinances that prohibit such practices, as they can cause
damage or erosion to down gradient property owners, or cause other
environmental problems;
d. There is insufficient regulatory guidance and procedures to allow permit writers to
properly specify monitoring frequency and sampling protocols (e.g.,
instantaneous maximum, 1-day average, 3-day average, etc.), and for
Dischargers to obtain representative samples to compare to NELs for the
purpose of strict compliance; and,
e. NELs must be developed with consideration of what is economically achievable
for each industrial sector. These stakeholders point out that the U.S. EPA goes
to great lengths evaluating the various BMP technologies available for a
particular pollutant, the costs and efficiency of each BMP, and the applicability of
the BMPs to the industry as a whole or to a limited number of industrial sites
based upon the size of the facility, the quantity of material, and other
considerations.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

19

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
The State Water Board does not have the information (including monitoring data,
industry specific information, BMP performance analyses, water quality information,
monitoring guidelines, and information on costs and overall effectiveness of control
technologies) necessary to promulgate NELs at the time of adoption of this General
Permit. Therefore, it is infeasible to include NELs in this statewide General Permit.
Many of the new requirements in this General Permit have been designed to
address the shortcomings of previous permits and the existing storm water data set.
Under this General Permit, sampling results must be certified and submitted into
SMARTS by Dischargers, along with SWPPPs which outline the technologies and
BMPs used to control pollutants at each facility. The ERA process will also collect
information on costs and the engineering aspects of the various control technologies
employed by each facility. Previous permit versions did not have a mechanism for
receiving this site specific information electronically, and only a small percentage of
Dischargers submitted their Annual Reports via SMARTS. This General Permit will
make this information more accessible, allowing the Water Boards to evaluate the
relationship between BMPs and the ability of facilities to meet the NALs set forth in
this General Permit. Finally, the new Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner
(QISP) training requirements of this General Permit have been designed in part to
improve the quality of the data submitted.
5. Narrative Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs) and Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
The primary TBEL in this General Permit requires Dischargers to “implement BMPs
that comply with the BAT/BCT requirements of this General Permit to reduce or
prevent discharges of pollutants in their storm water discharge in a manner that
reflects best industry practice considering technological availability and economic
practicability and achievability.” (Section V.A of this General Permit). This TBEL is
a restatement of the BAT/BCT standard, as articulated by U.S. EPA in the 2008
MSGP and accompanying Fact Sheet. In order to comply with this TBEL,
Dischargers must implement BMPs that meet or exceed the BAT/BCT technologybased standard. The requirement to “reduce or prevent” is equivalent to the
requirement in the federal regulations that BMPs be used in lieu of NELs to “control
or abate” the discharge of pollutants. (40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k).)
BMPs are defined as the “scheduling of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices to reduce or prevent the
discharge of pollutants… includ[ing] treatment requirements, operating procedures,
and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or
drainage from raw material storage.” (40 C.F.R. § 122.2.)
This General Permit (Sections X.H.1 and X.H.2) requires all Dischargers to
implement minimum BMPs, as well as any advanced BMPs that are necessary to
adequately reduce or prevent pollutants in discharges consistent with the TBELs.
The minimum BMPs specified in this General Permit represent common practices
that can be implemented by most facilities. This General Permit generally does not
mandate the specific mode of design, installation or implementation for the minimum
BMPs at a Discharger’s facility. It is up to the Discharger, in the first instance, to
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

20

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
determine what must be done to meet the applicable effluent limits. For example,
Section X.H.1.a.vi of this General Permit requires Dischargers to contain all stored
non-solid industrial materials that can be transported or dispersed via wind or
contact with storm water. How this is achieved will vary by facility: for some
facilities, all activities may be moved indoors, while for others this will not be
feasible. However, even for the latter, many activities may be moved indoors, others
may be contained using tarps or a containment system, while still other activities
may be limited to times when exposure to precipitation is not likely. Each of these
control measures is acceptable and appropriate depending upon the facility-specific
circumstances.
BMPs can be actions (including processes, procedures, schedules of activities,
prohibitions on practices and other management practices), or structural or installed
devices to reduce or prevent water pollution. (40 C.F.R. § 122.2.) They can be just
about anything that is effective at preventing pollutants from entering the
environment, and for meeting applicable limits of this General Permit. In this
General Permit, Dischargers are required to select, design, install, and implement
facility-specific control measures to meet these limits. Many industrial facilities
already have such control measures in place for product loss prevention, accident
and fire prevention, worker health and safety or to comply with other environmental
regulations. Dischargers must tailor the BMPs detailed in this General Permit to
their facilities, as well as improve upon them as necessary to meet permit limits.
The examples detailed in this Fact Sheet emphasize prevention over treatment.
However, sometimes more traditional end-of-pipe treatment may be necessary,
particularly where a facility might otherwise cause or contribute to an exceedance of
water quality standards.
This General Permit requires Dischargers to implement BMPs “to the extent
feasible.” Consistent with the control level requirements of the CWA, for the
purposes of this General Permit, the requirement to implement BMPs “to the extent
feasible” means to reduce and/or prevent discharges of pollutants using BMPs that
represent BAT and BPT in light of best industry practice. 4 In other words,
Dischargers are required to select, design, install and implement BMPs that reduce
or prevent discharges of pollutants in their storm water discharge in a manner that
reflects best industry practice considering their technological availability and
economic practicability and achievability.
To determine technological availability and economic practicability and achievability,
Dischargers need to consider what control measures are considered “best” for their
industry, and then select and design control measures for their site that are viable in
terms of cost and technology. The State Water Board believes that for many
facilities minimization of pollutants in storm water discharges can be achieved
without using highly engineered, complex treatment systems. The BMPs included in
4

Because toxic and nonconventional pollutants are controlled in the first step by BPT and in the second step by BAT, and the
second level of control is “increasingly stringent” (EPA v. National Crushed Stone, 449 U.S. 64, 69 (1980), for simplicity of
discussion, the rest of this discussion will focus on BAT. Similarly, because the BAT levels of control in this General Permit are
expressed as BMPs and pollution prevention measures, they will also control conventional pollutants. Therefore this
discussion will focus on BAT rather than BCT or BPT for conventional pollutants.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

21

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
this General Permit emphasize effective “low-tech” controls, such as regular
cleaning of outdoor areas where industrial activities may take place, proper
maintenance of equipment, diversion of storm water around areas where pollutants
may be picked up, and effective advanced planning and training (e.g., for spill
prevention and response).
E. Receiving Water Limitations and Water Quality Standards
Pursuant to CWA section 301(b)(1)(C) and Water Code section 13377, this General
Permit requires compliance with receiving water limitations based on water quality
standards. The primary receiving water limitation requires that industrial storm water
discharges not cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality
standards. Implementation of the BMPs as required by the technology-based effluent
limitation in Section V of this General Permit will typically result in compliance with the
receiving water limitations. The discussion of BMPs in this General Permit generally
focuses on requiring implementation of BMPs to the extent necessary to achieve
compliance with the technology-based effluent limitations, because the technologybased limitations apply similarly to all facilities. In addition, however, this General
Permit also makes it clear that, if any individual facility's storm water discharge causes
or contributes to an exceedance of a water quality standard, that Discharger must
implement additional BMPs or other control measures that are tailored to that facility in
order to attain compliance with the receiving water limitation. A Discharger that is
notified by a Regional Water Board or who determines the discharge is causing or
contributing to an exceedance of a water quality standard must comply with the Water
Quality Based Corrective Actions found in Section XX.B of this General Permit.
Water Quality Based Corrective Actions are different from the Level 1 and Level 2 ERAs
that result from effluent-based monitoring. It is possible for a Discharger to be engaged
in Level 1 or Level 2 ERAs for one or more pollutants and simultaneously be required to
perform Water Quality Based Corrective Actions for one or more other pollutants.
Failure to comply with these additional Water Quality Based Corrective Action
requirements is a violation of this General Permit. If additional operational source
control measures do not adequately reduce the pollutants, Dischargers must implement
additional measures such as the construction of treatment systems and/or overhead
coverage. Overhead coverage is any structure or temporary shelter that prevents the
vertical contact of precipitation with industrial materials or activities. If the Regional
Water Board determines that the Discharger’s selected BMPs are inadequate, the
Regional Water Board may require implementation of additional BMPs and/or may take
enforcement against Dischargers for failure to comply with this General Permit.
F. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
TMDLs are regulatory tools that provide the maximum amount of a pollutant from
potential source in the watershed that a water body can receive while attaining water
quality standards. A TMDL is defined as the sum of the allowable loads of a single
pollutant from all contributing point sources (the waste load allocations) and non-point
sources (load allocations), plus the contribution from background sources. (40 C.F.R. §
130.2, subd. (i).) Discharges covered by this General Permit are considered to be point
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

22

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
source discharges, and therefore must comply with effluent limitations that are
“consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available waste load
allocation for the discharge prepared by the State and approved by EPA pursuant to 40
Code of Federal Regulations section 130.7.” (40 C.F.R. § 122.44, subd. (d)(1)(vii).) In
addition, Water Code section 13263, subdivision (a), requires that waste discharge
requirements implement relevant water quality control plans. Many TMDLs in existing
water quality control plans include both waste load allocations and implementation
requirements. Attachment E of this General Permit lists the watersheds with U.S. EPAapproved and U.S. EPA-established TMDLs that include TMDL requirements for
Dischargers covered by this General Permit.
NPDES-regulated storm water discharges (which include industrial storm water) must
be addressed by waste load allocations in TMDLs. (40 C.F.R. § 130.2(h).) NPDES
permits must contain effluent limits and conditions consistent with the requirements and
assumptions of the waste load allocations in TMDLs. (40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).)
To date, the relevant waste load allocations assigned to industrial storm water
discharges are not directly translatable to effluent limitations. Many of the TMDLs lack
sufficient facility specific information, discharge characterization data, implementation
requirements, and compliance monitoring requirements. Accordingly, an analysis of
each TMDL applicable to industrial storm water discharges must to be performed to
determine if it is appropriate to translate the waste load allocation into a numeric effluent
limit, or if the effluent limit is to be expressed narratively using a BMP approach. U.S.
EPA recognizes that because storm water discharges are highly variable in frequency
and duration and are not easily characterized, it is often not feasible or appropriate to
establish numeric limits. Variability and the lack of data available make it difficult to
determine with precision or certainty actual and projected loadings for individual
Dischargers or groups of Dischargers.
Regardless of whether the effluent limit is to be numeric or narrative, the existing waste
load allocations must be carefully analyzed, and in many cases translated, to determine
the appropriate effluent limitations. Issues of interpretation exist with all of the waste
load allocations applicable to Dischargers, and these issues vary based on the TMDL.
Below is an example of one of the simpler issues:
FIGURE 1: Example Waste Load Allocations Proposed Translation: Ballona
Creek Estuary – Toxic Pollutants
Metals per Acre Waste Load Allocations for Individual General
Construction or Industrial Storm Water Permittees (grams/year/acre)
Cadmium Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
0.1
3
4
0.1
13
Metals per Acre Waste Load Allocations for Individual General
Construction or Industrial Storm Water Permittees
(milligrams/year/acre)
Chlordane
DDTs
Total
Total Polycyclic aromatic
Polychlorinated
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
biphenyl (PCBs)
0.04
0.14
2
350

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

23

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
In order for the above waste load allocations to effectively be implemented as effluent
limits under the General Permit, the Water Boards must (1) identify which discharges
the waste load allocations apply to, (2) identify the acreages of the individual facilities,
(3) convert the waste load allocations from grams/year/acre (or milligrams/year/acre) to
grams/year (or milligrams/year) based on the acreage at each identified facility, (4)
assign the effluent limits to the identified Dischargers, (5) determine appropriate
monitoring to assess compliance with the effluent limits, and (6) develop a tracking
mechanism for each identified facility and their individual effluent limits. A similar
stepwise process is necessary for each TMDL with waste load allocations assigned to
industrial storm water discharges. For TMDLs where effluent limits will be expressed as
BMPs, analysis must to be performed to determine the appropriate BMPs and the
corresponding effectiveness to comply with the assigned waste load allocations.
Some waste load allocations are already expressed as concentration based numbers.
It may appear simple to incorporate these values into this General Permit as effluent
limits, but the questions still remain regarding how to determine compliance. The
monitoring requirements in this General Permit are not designed to measure
compliance with a numeric effluent limit or to measure the effect of a discharge on a
receiving water body. (See the discussion on monitoring requirements in Fact Sheet
Section II.J.) This General Permit requires sampling of four (4) storm events a year,
with certain limitations as to when a discharge may be sampled. This method of
monitoring may not appropriately serve as TMDL compliance sampling since grab
samples are only representative of the particular moment in time when the sample was
taken. Since storm water is highly variable, four grab samples per year may not provide
sufficient confidence that the effluent limit is being met. An alternative monitoring
scheme may be necessary to determine the facility’s impact on the receiving water and
to determine compliance with any assigned effluent limits. Questions concerning
whether sampling results should be grab samples, composite samples, flow-weighted
averaged over all drainage areas, etc. cannot be determined for each concentrationbased TMDL without a more thorough analysis.
Additionally, monitoring and assessment requirements must be developed for all of the
TMDLs to determine compliance with or progress towards meeting TMDL requirements.
The proposed monitoring requirements in this General Permit are not designed to
assess pollutant loading or determine compliance with TMDL-specific effluent limits.
Due to the large number and variety of discharges subject to a wide range of TMDLs
statewide, to prevent a severe delay in the adoption of this General Permit, TMDLspecific permit requirements for the TMDLs listed in Attachment E will be proposed by
the Regional Water Boards. Since the waste load allocations and/or implementation
requirements apply to multiple discharges in the region(s) the TMDL were developed,
the development of TMDL-specific permit requirements is best coordinated at the
Regional Water Board level. The development of TMDL-specific permit requirements is
subject to notice and a public comment period prior to incorporation into this General
Permit.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

24

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Regional Water Board staff, with the assistance of State Water Board staff, will develop
and submit the proposed TMDL-specific permit requirements for each of the TMDLs
listed in Attachment E by July 1, 2016.5 After conducting a 30-day public comment
period, the Regional Water Boards will propose TMDL-specific permit requirements to
the State Water Board for adoption into this General Permit. The Regional Water
Boards may also include TMDL-specific monitoring requirements for inclusion in this
General Permit, or may issue Regional Water Board orders pursuant to Water Code
section 13383 requiring TMDL-specific monitoring. The Regional Water Boards or their
Executive Officers may complete these tasks, and the proposed TMDL-specific permit
requirements shall have no force or effect until adopted, with or without modification, by
the State Water Board. Unless directed to do so by the Regional Water Board,
Dischargers are not required to take any additional actions to comply with the TMDLs
listed in Attachment E until the State Water Board reopens this General Permit and
includes TMDL-specific permit requirements. This approach is consistent with the 2008
MSGP. TMDL-specific permit requirements are not limited by the BAT/BCT technologybased standards.
The Regional Water Boards will submit to the State Water Board the following
information for each of the TMDLs listed in Attachment E:






Proposed TMDL-specific permit requirements, including any applicable effluent
limitations, implementation timelines, additional monitoring requirements,
reporting requirements, an explanation of how an exceedance of an effluent
limitation or a violation of the TMDL will be determined, and required deliverables
consistent with the TMDL(s);
An explanation of how the proposed TMDL-specific permit requirements,
timelines, and deliverables are consistent with the assumptions and requirements
of applicable waste load allocation(s) to implement the TMDL(s);
Where a BMP-based approach is proposed, an explanation of how the proposed
BMPs will be sufficient to implement applicable waste load allocations; and
Where concentration-based monitoring is required, an explanation of how the
required monitoring, reporting and calculation methodology for an exceedance of
an effluent limitation or a violation of the TMDL(s) will be sufficient to
demonstrate compliance with the TMDL(s).

Upon receipt of the information described above, the State Water Board will conduct a
public comment period and reopen this General Permit to populate Attachment E, the
Fact Sheet, and other provisions as necessary in order to incorporate these TMDLspecific permit requirements into this General Permit. Attachment E may also be
reopened during the term of this General Permit to add additional TMDLs and
corresponding implementation requirements.
This General Permit (Section X.G.2.a.ix) requires a Discharger to identify any additional
industrial parameters that may be discharged to a waterbody with a 303(d) impairment
identified in Appendix 3 as likely to be associated with industrial storm water.
5

Due to the workload associated with the implementation of this General Permit (e.g., training program development, NEC
outreach, electronic enrollment and reporting via SMARTS) it is believed that two years in necessary for Staff to complete a
comprehensive analysis and stakeholder process for TMDLS applicable to Dischargers under this General Permit.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

25

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Dischargers may need to implement additional monitoring for any applicable parameters
(Section XI.B.6.e). Appendix 3 of this General Permit includes the water bodies with
303(d) impairments or TMDLs for pollutants that are likely to be associated with
industrial storm water in black font, and those that are not likely to be associated with
industrial storm water in red font. This determination is based on the pollutant or
pollutants that are causing each impairment, and the State Water Board’s general
experience regarding the types of pollutants that are typically found in industrial storm
water discharges. The list of waterbodies is from the State Water Boards statewide
2010 Integrated CWA Section 303(d) List / Section 305(b) Report.
Some of the water bodies with 303(d) impairments or TMDLs listed in Appendix 3 of this
General Permit are not applicable to Dischargers covered under this General Permit.
Appendix 3 indicates these water bodies Dischargers are not required to include in their
pollutant source assessment (unless directed to do so by the Regional Water Board).
New Dischargers (as defined in Attachment C) applying for NOI coverage under this
General Permit that will be discharging to an impaired water body with a 303(d) listed
impairment are ineligible for coverage unless the Discharger submits data and/or
information, prepared by a QISP, demonstrating that the facility will not cause or
contribute to the impairment. Section VII.B of this General Permit describes the three
different options New Dischargers have for making this determination. This General
Permit requires a QISP to assist the New Discharger with this determination because
individuals making this determination will need expertise in industrial storm water
pollutant sources, BMPs and a thorough understanding of complying with U.S. EPA’s
storm water regulations and this General Permit’s requirements. Not requiring New
Dischargers to have a QISP assist in this demonstration would possibly lead to costly
retrofits or closure of a new facility that has not demonstrated that the facility will not
cause or contribute to the impairment.
G. Discharges Subject to the California Ocean Plan
1. Discharges to Ocean Waters
On October 16, 2012 the State Water Board amended the California Ocean Plan
(California Ocean Plan) to require industrial storm water Dischargers with outfalls
discharging to ocean waters to comply with the California Ocean Plan’s model
monitoring provisions. The amended California Ocean Plan requires industrial storm
water dischargers with outfalls discharging to ocean waters to comply with the
California Ocean Plan’s model monitoring provisions. These provisions require
Dischargers to: (a) monitor runoff for specific parameters at all outfalls from two
storm events per year, and collect at least one representative receiving water
sample per year, (b) conduct specified toxicity monitoring at certain types of outfalls
at a minimum of once per year, and (c) conduct marine sediment monitoring for
toxicity under specific circumstances (California Ocean Plan, Appendix III). The
California Ocean Plan provides conditions under which some of the above
monitoring provisions may be waived by the Water Boards.
This General Permit requires dischargers with outfalls that discharge to ocean
waters to comply with the California Ocean Plan’s model monitoring provisions and
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

26

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
any additional monitoring requirements established pursuant to Water Code section
13383. Dischargers who have not developed and implemented a monitoring
program in compliance with the California Ocean Plan’s model monitoring provisions
by July 1, 2015 or seven (7) days prior to commencing operations, whichever is
later, are ineligible to obtain coverage under this General Permit.
2. Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) Exception
The State Water Board adopted the California Ocean Plan (California Ocean Plan)
in 1972, and has subsequently amended the Plan. The California Ocean Plan
prohibits the discharge of waste to designated ASBS. ASBS are ocean areas
designated by the State Water Board as requiring special protection through the
maintenance of natural water quality. The California Ocean Plan states that the
State Water Board may grant an exception to California Ocean Plan provisions
where the State Water Board determines that the exception will not compromise
protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses and the public interest will be served.
On March 20, 2012, the State Water Board adopted Resolution 2012-0012 (ASBS
Exception), which grants an exception to the California Ocean Plan prohibition on
discharges to ASBS for a limited number of industrial storm water Discharger
applicants. The ASBS Exception contains “Special Protections” to maintain natural
water quality and protect the beneficial uses of the ASBS. In order to legally
discharge into an ASBS, these Dischargers must comply with the terms of the ASBS
Exception and obtain coverage under this General Permit. This General Permit
incorporates the terms of the ASBS Exception and includes the applicable
monitoring requirements for all Dischargers discharging to an ASBS under the ASBS
Exception.
H. Training Qualifications
This General Permit and the previous permit both require Dischargers to ensure that
personnel responsible for permit compliance have an acceptable level of knowledge.
Stakeholders have observed that the previous permit did not adequately specify how to
comply with various elements of the permit, such as selecting discharge locations
representative of the facility storm water discharge and evaluating potential pollutant
sources, nor did it provide a clearly outlined Discharger training program. Guidance that
is available from outside sources can be complicated to understand or costly to obtain,
which can result in many Dischargers developing and implementing deficient SWPPPs
and conducting inadequate monitoring activities. Some Dischargers under the previous
permit had the resources to hire professional environmental staff or environmental
consultants to assist in compliance. Even in those cases, however, there was little
certainty that Dischargers received training regarding implementation of the various
BMPs being implemented and required monitoring activities under the previous permit.
Through this General Permit, the State Water Board seeks to improve compliance and
monitoring data quality, and expand each Discharger’s understanding of this General
Permit’s requirements.
This General Permit establishes the Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner (QISP)
role. A QISP is someone who has completed a State Water Board sponsored or
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

27

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
approved QISP training course and has registered in SMARTS. A QISP is required to
implement certain General Permit requirements at the facility once it has entered Level
1 status in the ERA process as described in Section XII of this General Permit. In some
instances it may be advisable for a facility employee to take the training, or for a facility
to hire a QISP prior to entering Level 1 status as the training will contain information on
the new permit requirements and how to perform certain tasks such as selecting
discharge locations representative of the facility storm water discharge, evaluating
potential pollutant sources, and identifying inadequate SWPPP elements.
Some industry stakeholders have claimed that their staff is already adequately trained.
These employees may continue to perform the basic permit functions (e.g. prepare
SWPPPs, perform monitoring requirements, and prepare Annual Reports) without
receiving any additional training if the facility’s sampling and analysis results do not
exceed the NALs. This requirement is structured in a manner to reduce the costs of
compliance for facilities that may not negatively impact receiving water quality.
California licensed professional civil, industrial, chemical, and mechanical engineers
and geologists have licenses that have professional overlap with the topics of this
General Permit. The California Department of Consumer Affairs, Board for Professional
Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists (CBPELSG) provides the licensure and
regulation of professional civil, industrial, chemical, and mechanical engineers and
professional geologists in California. The State Water Board is developing a specialized
self-guided State Water Board-sponsored registration and training program specifically
for these CPBELSG licensed engineers and geologists in good standing with
CBPELSG. The CBPELSG has staff and resources dedicated to investigate and take
appropriate enforcement actions in instances where a licensed professional engineer or
geologist is alleged to be noncompliant with CBPELSG’s laws and regulations. Actions
that result in noncompliance with this General Permit may constitute a potential violation
of the CBPELSG requirements and may subject a licensee to investigation by the
CBPELSG.
A QISP may represent one or more facilities but must be able to perform the functions
required by this General Permit at all times. It is advisable that this individual be limited
to a specific geographic region due to the difficulty of performing the needed tasks
before, during, and after qualifying storm events may be difficult or impossible if
extensive travel is required. Dischargers are required to ensure that the designated
QISP has completed the appropriate QISP training course.
This General Permit contains a mechanism that allows for the Water Boards’ Executive
Director or Executive Officer to rescind the registration of any QISPs who are found to
be inadequately performing their duties as a QISP will no longer be able to do so. A
QISP may ask the State Water Board to review any decision to revoke his or her QISP
registration. Table 1 of this Fact Sheet below describes the different roles that the QISP
and California licensed professional engineers have in this General Permit.
TABLE 1: Role-Specific Permit Requirements

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

28

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Qualifications
QISP

California licensed
professional engineer

Task
Assist New Dischargers determine coverage
eligibility for Discharges to an impaired water
body, Level 1 ERA Evaluation and report, Level
2 ERA Action Plan, and Technical Report, and
the Level 2 ERA extension
Inactive Mining Operation Certification, SWPPPs
for inactive mining, and annual re-certification of
Inactive Mining Operation Certification, NONA
Technical Reports, and Subchapter N
calculations

I. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1. General
This General Permit requires that all Dischargers develop, implement, and
retain onsite a site-specific SWPPP. The SWPPP requirements generally
follow U.S. EPA’s five-phase approach to developing SWPPPs, which has
been adapted to reflect the requirements of this General Permit in Figure 2
of this Fact Sheet. This approach provides the flexibility necessary to
establish appropriate BMPs for different industrial activities and pollutant
sources. This General Permit requires a Discharger to include in its
SWPPP (Section X of this General Permit) a site map, authorized NSWDs
at the facility, and an identification and assessment of potential pollutants
sources resulting from exposure of industrial activities to storm water.
This General Permit requires that Dischargers clearly describe the BMPs
that are being implemented in the SWPPP. In addition to providing
descriptions, Dischargers must also describe who is responsible for the
BMPs, where the BMPs will be installed, how often and when the BMPs
will be implemented, and identify any pollutants of concern. Table 2 of this
Fact Sheet provides an example of how a Discharger could assess
potential pollution sources and provide a corresponding BMPs summary.
This General Permit requires that Dischargers select an appropriate facility
inspection frequency beyond the required monthly inspections if necessary,
and to determine if SWPPP revisions are necessary to address any
physical or operational changes at the facility or make changes to the
existing BMPs (Section X.H.4.a.vii and Section XI.A.4 of this General
Permit). Facilities that are subject to multi-phased physical expansion or
significant seasonal operational changes may require more frequent
SWPPP updates and facility inspections. Facilities with very stable
operations may require fewer SWPPP updates and facility inspections.
Failure to develop or implement an adequate SWPPP, or update or revise an
existing SWPPP as required, is a violation of this General Permit. Failure to
maintain the SWPPP on-site and have it available for inspection is also a violation of
this General Permit.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

29

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Dischargers are also required to submit their SWPPPs and any SWPPP
revisions via SMARTS; accordingly, BMP revisions made in response to
observed compliance problems will be included in the revised SWPPP
electronically submitted via SMARTS. Not all SWPPP revisions are
significant and it is up to the Dischargers to distinguish between revisions
that are significant and those that are not significant. If no changes are
made at all to the SWPPP, the Discharger is not required to resubmit the
SWPPP on any specific frequency.


Significant SWPPP Revisions: Dischargers are required to certify and
submit via SMARTS their SWPPP within 30 days of the significant
revision(s). While it is not easy to draw a line generally between
revisions that are significant and those that are not significant,
Dischargers are not required to certify and submit via SMARTS any
SWPPP revisions that are comprised of only typographical fixes or
minor clarifications.



All Other SWPPP Revisions: Dischargers are required to submit
revisions to the SWPPP that are determined to not be significant every
three (3) months in the reporting year.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

30

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
FIGURE 2: Five Phases for Developing and Implementing an Industrial Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION
*Form Pollution Prevention Team
*Review other facility plans

ASSESSMENT
*Develop a site map
*Identify potential pollutant sources
*Inventory of materials and chemicals
*List significant spills and leaks
*Identify Non-Storm Water Discharges
*Assess pollutant risk

Best Management Practice (BMP) IDENTIFICATION
*Identify minimum required BMPs
*Identify any advanced BMPs

IMPLEMENTATION
*Train employees for the Pollution Prevention Team
*Implement BMPs
*Collect and review records

EVALUATION / MONITORING
*Conduct annual facility evaluation (Annual Evaluation)
*Review monitoring information
*Evaluate BMPs
*Review and revise SWPPP

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

31

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
TABLE 2: Example - Assessment of Potential Industrial Pollution Sources and
Corresponding BMPs Summary
Area
Vehicle and
Equipment
Fueling

Activity
Fueling

Pollutant Source

Industrial Pollutant
Fuel oil

-Use spill and overflow
protection

Spills caused by
topping off fuel
tanks

Fuel oil

-Train employees on proper
fueling, cleanup, and spill
response techniques

Hosing or washing
down fuel area

Fuel oil

-Use dry cleanup methods
rather than hosing down area

Spills and leaks
during delivery

BMPs

-Implement proper spill
prevention control program
Leaking storage
tanks

Fuel oil

-Inspect fueling areas regularly
to detect problems

Rainfall running off
fueling area, and
rainfall running
onto and off fueling
area

Fuel oil

-Minimize run-on of storm
water into the fueling area,
cover fueling area

2. Minimum and Advanced BMPs
Section V of this General Permit requires the Discharger to comply with
technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs). In this General Permit,
TBELs rely on implementation of BMPs for Dischargers to reduce and
prevent pollutants in their discharge. The BMP effluent limitations have
been integrated into the Section X.H of this General Permit and are divided
into two categories – minimum BMPs which are generally non-structural
BMPs that all Dischargers must implement to the extent feasible, and
advanced BMPs which are generally structural BMPs that must be
implemented if the minimum BMPs are inadequate to achieve compliance
with the TBELs. Section X of this General Permit includes both substantive
control requirements in the form of the BMPs listed in Section X.H, as well
as various reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The requirement to
implement BMPs “to the extent feasible” allows Dischargers flexibility when
implementing BMPs, by not requiring the implementation of BMPs that are
not technologically available and economically practicable and achievable
in light of best industry practices.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

32

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
The 2008 MSGP requires Dischargers to comply with 12 non-numeric technologybased effluent limits in Section 2.1.2 of the permit through the implementation of
“control measures.” This requirement is an expansion of the general considerations
outlined in the MSGP adopted in 2000. The control measures specified by the U.S.
EPA in the 2008 MSGP are as follows (in order as listed in the 2008 MSGP):
1.

Minimize Exposure

2.

Good Housekeeping

3.

Maintenance

4.

Spill Prevention and Response Procedures

5.

Erosion and Sediment Controls

6.

Management of Runoff

7.

Salt Storage Piles or Piles Containing Salt

8.

Sector Specific Non-Numeric Effluent Limits

9.

Employee Training

10.

Non-Storm Water Discharges (NSWDs)

11.
12.

Waste, Garbage and Floatable Debris
Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking of
Industrial Materials

This General Permit addresses eleven of the above twelve control measures from
the 2008 MSGP Section 2.1.2 Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits
(BPT/BAT/BCT). Eleven of the control measures are addressed as minimum BMPs
that the State Water Board has determined to be most applicable to California’s
Dischargers. Two of those eleven control measures (1- Minimize Exposure, 6 –
Management of Runoff) are also identified as advanced BMPs (Section X.H.2 of this
General Permit). This General Permit is not a sector-specific permit and therefore
does not contain limitations to address control measure number 8 (Sector Specific
Non-Numeric Effluent Limits).
The non-structural elements of the control measure to minimize exposure are
addressed in the minimum BMP Section X.H.1 of this General Permit while structural
control elements are addressed in the advanced BMP Section X.H.2 of this General
Permit. The on-site diversion elements of the control measure to minimize exposure
are addressed as minimum BMPs.
The runoff reduction elements of the control measure to minimize exposure are
included as advanced BMPs. Advanced BMPs that are required to be implemented
when a Discharger has implemented the minimum BMPs to the extent feasible and
they are not adequate to comply with the TBELs. The advanced BMP categories
are: (1) exposure minimization BMPs, (2) storm water containment and discharge
reduction BMPs, (3) treatment control BMPs, and (4) additional advanced BMPs
needed to meet the effluent limitations of this General Permit. Advanced BMPs are
generally structural control measures and can include any BMPs that exceed the
minimum BMPs. The control measure for Non-Storm Water Discharges (NSWDs) is
addressed in both the discharge prohibitions (Section III) and authorized non-storm
water discharges (Section IV) of this General Permit and essentially represents a
minimum BMP.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

33

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
This General Permit encourages Dischargers to utilize BMPs that infiltrate or reuse
storm water where feasible. The State Water Board expects that these types of
BMPs will not be appropriate for all industrial facilities, but recognizes the many
possible benefits (e.g. increased aquifer recharge, reduces flooding, improvements
to water quality) associated with the infiltration and reuse of storm water.
Encouraging the use of storm water infiltration and reuse BMPs is consistent with
the statewide approach to managing storm water with lower impact methods.
The BMPs in this General Permit that coincide with the control measures in the 2008
MSGP are as follows (in order as listed in the 2008 MSGP):
a. Minimization of Exposure to Storm Water
Section 2.1.2.1 of the 2008 MSGP requires Dischargers to minimize the
exposure of industrial materials and areas of industrial activity to rain, snow,
snowmelt, and runoff. The 2008 MSGP mixes both structural and nonstructural
BMPs and specifies particular BMPs to consider when minimizing exposure such
as grading/berming areas to minimize runoff, locating materials indoors, spill
clean up, contain vehicle fluid leaks or drain fluids before storing vehicles on-site,
secondary containment of materials, conduct cleaning activities undercover,
indoors or in bermed areas, and drain all wash water to a proper collection
system.
This General Permit requires the evaluation of BMPs in the potential pollutant
source assessment in the SWPPP (Section X.G.2). When the minimum BMPs
are not adequate to comply with the TBELs, Dischargers are required to
implement advanced BMPs (Section X.H.2.a). These advanced BMPs may
include additional exposure minimization BMPs (Section X.H.2.b.1).
b. Good Housekeeping
Section 2.1.2.2 of the 2008 MSGP requires that Dischargers keep all exposed
areas that may be a potential source of pollutants clean and orderly. This
General Permit (Section X.H.1.a) seeks to define “clean and orderly” by
specifying a required set of nine (9) minimum good housekeeping BMPs, which
include: observations of outdoor/exposed areas, BMPs for controlling material
tracking, BMPs for dust generated from industrial materials or activities, BMPs for
rinse/wash water activities, covering stored industrial materials/waste, containing
all stored non-solid industrial materials, preventing discharge of rinse/wash
waters/industrial materials, prevent non-industrial area discharges from contact
with industrial areas of the facility, and prevent authorized NSWDs from nonindustrial areas from contact with industrial areas of the facility.
c. Preventative Maintenance
Section 2.1.2.3 of the 2008 MSGP requires that Dischargers regularly inspect,
test, maintain, and repair all industrial equipment to prevent leaks, spills and
releases of pollutants that may be exposed to storm water discharged to
receiving waters. This General Permit (Section X.H.1.b) incorporates this
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

34

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
concept by requiring four (4) nonstructural BMPs which include: identification and
inspection of equipment, observations of potential leaks in identified equipment,
an equipment maintenance schedule, and equipment maintenance procedures.
d. Spill and Leak Prevention and Response
Section 2.1.2.4 of the 2008 MSGP requires that Dischargers minimize the
potential for leaks, spills and other releases that may be exposed to storm water.
Dischargers are also required to develop a spill response plan which includes
procedures such as labeling of containers that are susceptible to a spill or a
leakage, establishing containment measures for such industrial materials,
procedures for stopping leaks/spills, and provisions for notification of the
appropriate personnel about any occurrence. This General Permit (Section
X.H.1.c) requires implementation of four (4) BMPs to address spills. These
BMPs include: developing a set of spill response procedures to minimize
spills/leaks, develop procedures to minimize the discharge of industrial materials
generated through spill/leaks, identifying/describing the equipment needed and
where it will be located at the facility, and identify/training appropriate spill
response personnel.
e. Erosion and Sediment Controls
Section 2.1.2.5 of the 2008 MSGP requires the use of structural and/or
non-structural control measures to stabilize exposed areas and contain
runoff. Also required is the use of a flow velocity dissipation device(s)
in outfall channels where necessary to reduce erosion and/or settle out
pollutants. This General Permit (Section X.H.1.e) requires the
implementation of (5) BMPs to prevent erosion and sediment
discharges. The erosion and sediment control BMPs include:
implementing effective wind erosion controls, providing for effective
stabilization of erodible areas prior to a forecasted storm event, site
entrance stabilization/prevent material tracking offsite and implement
perimeter controls, diversion of run-on and storm water generated from
within the facility away from all erodible materials, and ensuring
compliance with the design storm standards in Section X.H.6.
U.S. EPA has developed online resources for erosion and sediment
controls.6
f. Management of Runoff
Section 2.1.2.6 of the 2008 MSGP requires the diversion, infiltration, reuse,
containment, or otherwise reduction of storm water runoff, to minimize pollutants
in discharges. This General Permit (Sections X.H.1.a.viii, X.H.1.d.iv., and
6

U.S. EPA. 2008 MSGP. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp.cfm> [as of February 4, 2014].
U.S. EPA. National Menu of BMPs. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm>.
[as of February 4, 2014].
U.S. EPA. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas
<http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban/index.cfm>. [as of February 4, 2014].

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

35

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
X.H.1.e.iv) requires Dischargers to divert run-on from non-industrial sources and
manage storm water generated within the facility away from industrial materials
and erodible surfaces. Runoff reduction is required as an advanced BMP when
minimum BMPs are not adequate to comply with the TBELs. The 2008 MSGP
encouraged Dischargers to consult with EPA’s internet-based resources relating
to runoff management.7
g. Salt Storage Piles or Piles Containing Salt
Section 2.1.2.7 of the 2008 MSGP requires salt storage piles/piles containing salt
that may be discharged to be enclosed or covered and to use BMPs when the
salt is being used. This General Permit does not have a minimum BMP
specifically for salt storage, however it does require all stockpiled/stored
industrial materials be managed in a way to reduce or prevent industrial storm
water discharges of the stored/stockpiled pollutants. The good housekeeping
(Section X.H.1.a) and material handling and waste management (Section
X.H.1.d) minimum BMPs in this General Permit require that all materials readily
mobilized by storm water be covered, the minimization of handling of industrial
materials or wastes that can be readily mobilized by contact with storm water
during a storm event, and the diversion of run-on from stock piled materials.
h. Sector Specific Non-Numeric Effluent Limits
Section 2.1.2.8 of the 2008 MSGP requires Dischargers to achieve any additional
non-numeric limits stipulated in the relevant sector-specific section(s) of Part 8 of
the 2008 MSGP. This General Permit is not a sector-specific permit and does
not contain sector-specific non-numeric effluent limitations like the 2008 MSGP.
While this General Permit does not specify sector-specific BMPs, Dischargers
are required to select and implement BMPs for their specific facility to reduce or
prevent industrial storm water discharges of pollutants to comply with the
technology-based effluent limitations. In addition, sectors with applicable ELGs
must comply with those ELGs.
i.

Employee Training Program
Section 2.1.2.9 of the 2008 MSGP requires all employees engaged in
industrial activities or the handling of industrial materials that may affect
storm water to obtain training covering implementation of this General
Permit. This General Permit (Section X.D.1 and X.H.1.f) requires a
facility to establish a Pollution Prevention Team (team members,
collectively) responsible for implementing permit requirements such as
the SWPPP, monitoring requirements, or BMPs.

7

U.S. EPA. Sector-Specific Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series <www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp>. [as of
February 4, 2014].
U.S. EPA. National Menu of Stormwater BMPs <www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps> [as of February 4, 2014].
U.S. EPA. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas (and any similar State or
Tribal publications) <www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html>. [as of February 4, 2014].

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

36

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
The five (5) minimum training BMPs include: ensuring that all team members are
properly trained, preparing the proper training materials and manuals, identifying
which individuals needs to be trained, providing a training schedule, and
maintaining documentation on the training courses and which individuals
received the training.
This General Permit also requires a QISP to be assigned to each facility that
reaches Level 1 status. One purpose of a QISP is to have an individual available
who can provide compliance assistance with these training requirements. The
QISP is responsible for training the appropriate team members. Appropriate
team members are any team members involved in implementing this General
Permit for drainage areas causing NAL exceedances, and any other team
members identified by the QISP that need additional training to implement this
General Permit.
j.

NSWDs
Section 2.1.2.10 of the 2008 MSGP requires that unauthorized NSWDs are
eliminated (Part 1.2.3 of the 2008 MSGP lists the NSWDs authorized by the 2008
MSGP). The good housekeeping minimum BMP (Section X.H.1.a.ix of this
General Permit) requires that contact between authorized NSWDs and industrial
areas of the facility be minimized. This General Permit (Section IV) also includes
separate requirements for authorized NSWDs and (Section III) prohibits
unauthorized NSWDs.

k. Material Handling and Waste Management
Section 2.1.2.11 of the 2008 MSGP requires that Dischargers ensure waste,
garbage, and floatable debris are not discharged into receiving waters. The 2008
MSGP identifies keeping areas clean and intercepting such materials as ways to
minimize such discharges. This General Permit (Section X.H.1.d) requires
Dischargers to implement six (6) general BMPs that address material handling
and waste management. These BMPs include: preventing or minimizing
handling of waste or materials during a storm event that could potentially result in
a discharge, containing industrial materials susceptible to being dispersed by the
wind, covering industrial waste disposal containers when not in use to contain
industrial materials, diversion of run-on and storm water generated from within
the facility away from all stock piled materials, cleaning and managing spills of
such wastes or materials (in accordance with Section X.H.1.e of this General
Permit), and conducting observations of outdoor areas and equipment that may
come into contact with such materials or waste and become contaminated.
l.

Waste, Garbage and Floatable Debris
Section 2.1.2.11 of the 2008 MSGP requires that waste, garbage, and floatable
debris are not discharged to receiving waters by keeping exposed areas free of
such materials or by intercepting them before they are discharged. Material
handling and waste management BMPs are included in Section X.H.1.d of this
General Permit. Dischargers are required to: prevent handling of waste materials
during a storm event that could result in a discharge, contain waste disposal

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

37

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
containers when not in use, clean and manage spills from waste, and observe
outdoor areas and equipment that may come into contact with waste and
become contaminated.
m. Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking of Industrial Materials
Section 2.1.2.12 of the 2008 MSGP requires that generation of dust and off-site
tracking of raw, final, or waste materials is minimized. This General Permit does
not require minimization of dust generation and vehicle tracking of industrial
materials as a minimum BMP directly. Dust generation and vehicle tracking of
industrial materials BMPs are included in Section X.H.1.a (“good housekeeping”)
of this General Permit where Dischargers must prevent dust generation from
industrial materials or activities and contain all stored non-solid industrial
materials that can be transported or dispersed via wind or come in contact with
storm water, and Section X.H.1.d. (“material handling and waste management”)
of this General Permit, which requires Dischargers to contain non-solid industrial
materials or wastes that can be dispersed via wind erosion or come into contact
with storm water during handling.
n. Quality Assurance and Record Keeping
Section 2.1.2 of the 2008 MSGP does not directly designate record keeping as a
control measure. This General Permit (Section X.H.1.g) includes quality
assurance and record keeping as a minimum BMP and requires Dischargers to
implement three (3) general BMPs. These BMPs include: developing and
implementing procedures to ensure that all elements of the SWPPP are
implemented, develop a method of tracking and recording the implementation of
all BMPs identified in the SWPPP, and a requirement to keep and maintain those
records. This ensures that management procedures are designed and permit
requirements are implemented by appropriate staff.
o. Implementation of BMPs in the SWPPP
Like the previous permit, this General Permit does not assign Dischargers a
schedule to implement BMPs. Instead, this General Permit requires Dischargers
to select the appropriate schedule to implement the minimum BMPs. In addition,
this General Permit requires Dischargers to identify, as necessary, any BMPs
that should be implemented prior to precipitation events. Although Dischargers
are required to maintain internal procedures to ensure the BMPs are
implemented according to schedule or prior to precipitation events, Dischargers
are only required to certify in the Annual Report whether they complied with the
BMP implementation requirements.
Dischargers are required to implement an effective suite of BMPs that meet the
technology and water-quality based limitations of this General Permit. Based
upon Regional Water Board staff inspections, there is significant variation
between Dischargers’ interpretations of what BMPs were necessary to comply
with the previous permit. This General Permit establishes a new requirement
that Dischargers must implement, to the extent feasible, specific minimum BMPs
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

38

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
to reduce or prevent the presence of pollutants in their industrial storm water
discharge. In addition, due to the wide variety of facilities conducting numerous
and differing industrial activities throughout the state, this General Permit retains
the requirement from the previous permit that Dischargers establish and
implement additional BMPs beyond the minimum. Implementation of this
General Permit’s minimum BMPs, together with any necessary advanced BMPs,
will result in compliance with the effluent limitations of this General Permit
(Section V.A). All Dischargers must evaluate their facilities and determine the
best practices within their industry considering technological availability and
economic practicability and achievability to implement these minimum BMPs and
any advanced BMPs.
The State Water Board has selected minimum BMPs that are generally
applicable at all facilities. The minimum BMPs are consistent with the types of
BMPs normally found in properly developed SWPPPs and, in most cases, should
represent a significant portion of the effort required for a Discharger to achieve
compliance. Due to the diverse industries covered by this General Permit, the
development of a more comprehensive list of minimum BMPs is not currently
feasible. The selection, applicability, and effectiveness of a given BMP is often
related to industrial activity type and to facility-specific facts and circumstances.
Advanced BMPs must be selected and implemented by Dischargers, based on
the type of industry and facility-specific conditions, to the extent necessary to
comply with the technology-based effluent limitation requirements of this General
Permit.
Failure to implement all of the minimum BMPs to the extent feasible is a violation
of this General Permit. (Section X.H.1.) Dischargers must justify any
determination that it is infeasible to implement a minimum BMP in the SWPPP
(Section X.H.4.b). Failure to implement advanced BMPs necessary to achieve
compliance with either the technology or water quality standards requirements in
this General Permit is a violation of this General Permit.
p. Temporary Suspension of Industrial Activities
The exception for inactive and unstaffed sites in section 6.2.1.3 of the 2008
MSGP does not require a Discharger with a facility that is inactive and unstaffed
with no industrial materials or activities exposed to storm water (in accordance
with the substantive requirements in 40 Code of Federal Regulations section
122.26(g)) to complete benchmark monitoring. The Discharger is required to
sign and certify a statement in the SWPPP verifying that the site is inactive and
unstaffed. If circumstances change and industrial materials or activities become
exposed to storm water or the facility becomes active and/or staffed, this
exception no longer applies and the Discharger is required to begin complying
immediately with the applicable benchmark monitoring requirements under part
6.2 of the 2008 MSGP.
This General Permit allows Dischargers to temporarily suspend monitoring at
facilities where industrial activities have been suspended in accordance with
Section X.H.3. This is only intended for Dischargers with facilities where it is
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

39

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
infeasible to comply with this General Permit’s monitoring while activities are
suspended (e.g. remote, unstaffed, or inaccessible facilities during the time of
such a suspension). Dischargers are required to update the facility’s SWPPP
with the BMPs being used to stabilize the site and submit the suspension dates
and a justification for the suspension of monitoring via SMARTS.
3. Design Storm Standards for Treatment Control BMPs
It is the State Water Board’s intent to minimize the regulatory uncertainty and costs
concerning treatment control BMPs in order to encourage the implementation of
treatment control BMPs when appropriate. Section X.H.6 of this General Permit
specifies a design storm standard for use when treatment controls BMPs are
installed. There is both a volume-based and flow-based design storm standard in
this General Permit. Both are based on the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event.
Without a design storm standard, Dischargers have installed treatment controls
using a wide variety of designs that were sometimes either unnecessarily
stringent/expensive, or deficient in complying with the requirements of the relevant
permit. Some Dischargers have been hesitant to consider treatment options
because of the uncertainty concerning acceptable treatment design. The design
storm standards are generally expected to:


Be consistent with the effluent limitations of this General Permit;



Be protective of water quality;



Be achievable for most pollutants and their associated treatment technologies;
and,



Reduce the costs associated with treating industrial storm water discharges
beyond the levels necessary to achieve compliance with this General Permit.

In lieu of complying with the design storm standards for treatment control BMPs,
Dischargers may certify and submit a Level 2 ERA Technical Report, including an
Industrial Activity BMPs Demonstration (Section XII.D.2.a of this General Permit).
The Level 2 ERA Technical Report requirement is based upon NAL exceedances.
Under this option, a Discharger with Level 2 status must either implement BMPs to
eliminate future NAL exceedances, or justify what BMPs must be implemented to
comply with this General Permit even if the BMPs will not eliminate future
exceedances of NALs. Dischargers who implement treatment control BMPs that
vary from the design storm standards in Section X.H.6 must include an analysis
showing that their treatment control BMPs comply with this General Permit’s effluent
limitations in the Industrial Activity BMP Demonstration.
This General Permit does not require Dischargers to retrofit existing treatment
controls that do not meet the design storm standard, unless the Discharger
determines that the existing treatment controls are not adequate to comply with this
General Permit. In addition, once TMDL-specific implementation requirements are
added to this General Permit, those Dischargers subject to TMDLs may need to add
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

40

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
new or retrofitted treatment control BMPs to meet the TMDL implementation
requirements.
To arrive at these design storm standards, the State Water Board has relied heavily
on previous Water Board decisions concerning treatment efficacy for municipalities,
published documents, stakeholder comments, and reasonableness. In 2000, the
State Water Board issued State Water Board Order WQ 2000-11, which upheld Los
Angeles Regional Water Board's permit requirements which mandated that all new
development and redevelopment exceeding certain size criteria design treatment
BMPs based on a specific storm volume: the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event.
This design storm standard was based on research demonstrating that the standard
represents the maximized treatment volume cut-off at the point of diminishing
returns for rainfall/runoff frequency. 8 On the basis of this equation, the maximized
runoff volume for 85 percent treatment of annual runoff volumes in California can
range from 0.08 to 0.86 inch depending on the imperviousness of the watershed
area and the mean amount of rainfall. This design storm standard is referred to as
the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan’s volumetric criterion and there are
multiple acceptable methods of calculating this volume. For more information, see
the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook.9
The San Diego Regional Water Board first established both volumetric and flowbased design storm criteria for NPDES MS4 permits. It is generally accepted by civil
engineers doing hydrology work to use twice the peak hourly flow of a specific storm
event to use as the basis for flow-based design of BMPs. This General Permit
therefore establishes the flow-based design storm standard to be twice the peak
hourly flow of the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event.
The primary objective of specifying a design storm standard is to properly size BMPs
to, at a minimum, effectively treat the first flush of run-off from all storm events. The
economic impacts of treating all storm water from a facility versus the minimal
environmental benefit of complete treatment justify the design storm approach. It is
unrealistic to require each facility to do a cost benefit analysis of their treatment
structures. To simplify the requirements for design, the State Water Board reviewed
research from the City of Portland10 and the City of San Jose11 to determine the
volume of each rain event compared to the amount of events that occur for that
volume. The results of their findings show an inflection point that is typically found at
approximately the 80 to 85 percentile of recorded storm events.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans and
Numerical Design Standards for Best Management Practices - Staff Report and Record of Decision (Jan. 18, 2000)
<http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/stormwater/susmp/susmp_final_staff_report.pdf>. [as of February 4,
2014].
8

California Stormwater Quality Association, Stormwater Best Management Practice New Development and Redevelopment
Handbook (2003) <http://www.casqa.org/>. [as of February 4, 2014].
9

10

City of Portland Oregon. Portland Stormwater Management Manual Appendix E.1: Pollution Reduction Methodology E.1-1
(August 1, 2008). <http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/202909>. [as of February 4, 2014].

11

California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). CASQA BMP Handbook (January 2003) New Development and
Redevelopment (Errata 9-04) <http://www.casqa.org/>. [as of February 4, 2014].

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

41

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Dischargers should be aware of the potential unintended public health concerns
associated with treatment control BMPs. Extensive monitoring studies conducted by
the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) have documented that
mosquitoes opportunistically breed in structural BMPs, particularly those that hold
standing water for over 96 hours. BMPs that produce mosquitoes create potential
public health concerns and increase the burden on local vector control agencies that
are mandated to inspect for and abate mosquitoes and other vectors within their
jurisdictional boundaries. These unintended consequences can be lessened when
BMPs incorporate design, construction, and maintenance principles developed
specifically to minimize standing water available to mosquitoes12 while having
negligible effects on the capacity of the structures to provide water quality
improvements. The California Health and Safety Code prohibits landowners from
knowingly providing habitat for or allowing the production of mosquitoes and other
vectors, and gives local vector control agencies broad inspection and abatement
powers.13
Dischargers who install any type of volume-based treatment device are encouraged
to consider the BMPs in the California Department of Public Health’s guidance
manual published July 2012, “Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in
California” at
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Documents/BMPforMosquitoControl0712.pdf.
4. Monitoring Implementation Plan
Dischargers are required to prepare and implement a Monitoring Implementation
Plan (Section X.I of this General Permit). The Monitoring Implementation Plan
requirements are designed to assist the Discharger in developing a comprehensive
plan for the monitoring requirements in this General Permit and to assess their
monitoring program. The Monitoring Implementation Plan includes a description of
visual observation procedures and locations, as well as sampling procedures,
locations, and methods. The Monitoring Implementation Plan shall be included in
the SWPPP.
J. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
1.

General Monitoring Provisions
This General Permit requires Dischargers to develop and implement a facilityspecific monitoring program. Monitoring is defined as visual observations, sampling
and analysis. The monitoring data will be used to determine:

12

California Department of Public Health. (2012). Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California. <
http://www.westnile.ca.gov/resources.php>. [as of February 4, 2014]
13
California Health & Safety Code, Division 3, Section 2060 and following.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

42

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
a. Whether BMPs addressing pollutants in industrial storm water discharges and
authorized NSWDs are effective for compliance with the effluent and receiving
water limitations of this General Permit,
b. The presence of pollutants in industrial storm water discharges and authorized
NSWDs (and their sources) that may trigger the implementation of additional
BMPs and/or SWPPP revisions; and,
c. The effectiveness of BMPs in reducing or preventing pollutants in industrial
storm water discharges and authorized NSWDs.
Effluent sampling and analysis information may be useful to Dischargers when
evaluating the need for improved BMPs. The monitoring requirements in this
General Permit recognize the 2008 MSGP approach to visual observations as an
effective monitoring method for evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs at most
facilities. Section 6.2 of the 2008 MSGP limits its monitoring sampling requirements
to certain industrial categories. Similar to the previous permit, this General Permit
requires all Dischargers to sample unless they have obtained NEC coverage or
have an inactive mining operation(s) certified as allowed under this General Permit
Section XIII.
This General Permit defines a Qualifying Storm Event (QSE) to provide clarity to
Dischargers of when sampling is required. The previous permit (Section B.5.a)
specified that sampling was required within the first hour of discharge, however, this
General Permit requires Dischargers to sample within four hours of the start of
Discharge. Many Dischargers were not able to get samples of their discharge
locations within one (1) hour under the previous permit so this general permit has
expanded the timeframe allowed to provide enough time to sample all discharge
locations. The previous permit required three working dry days before sampling and
this General Permit defines this period as 48 hours, this timeframe was decreased
to provide more opportunities for Dischargers to obtain samples. This General
Permit does not specify a volume for sampling due to the complexity of using rain
gauges and the limited access of rain gauge station data.
Dischargers are only required to obtain samples required during scheduled facility
operating hours and when sampling conditions are safe in accordance with Section
XI.C.6.a.ii of this General Permit. If a storm event occurs during unscheduled
facility operating hours (e.g. during the weekend or night) and during the 12 hours
preceding the scheduled facility operating hours, the Dischargers is still responsible
for obtaining samples at discharge locations that are still producing a discharge at
the start of facility operations. Under the previous permit, many Dischargers were
unable to obtain samples due to rainfall beginning at night.
The State Water Board recognizes that it may not be feasible for all facilities to
obtain four QSEs in a reporting year because there may not be enough qualifying
storm events to do so. Therefore, a Discharger that is unable to collect and analyze
storm water samples from two QSEs in each half of a reporting year due to a lack of
QSEs is not in violation of Section XI.B.2. Dischargers that miss four QSEs during
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

43

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
a reporting year due to the fact that four QSEs did not occur are not required to
make up these sampling events in subsequent reporting years.
The State Water Board recognizes that each facility has unique physical
characteristics, industrial activities, and/or variations in BMP implementation and
performance which warrants the requirement that each facility demonstrate its
compliance. Figure 3 of this Fact Sheet provides a summary of all the monitoringrelated requirements of this General Permit. This General Permit’s monitoring
requirements include sampling and analysis requirements for specific indicator
parameters that indicate the presence of pollutants in industrial storm water
discharges. The “indicator parameters” are oil and grease (for petroleum
hydrocarbons), total suspended solids (for sediment and sediment bound
pollutants) and pH (for acidic and alkaline pollutants). Additionally, Dischargers are
required to evaluate their facilities and analyze samples for additional facilityspecific parameters. These monitoring program requirements are designed to
provide useful, cost-effective, timely, and easily obtained information to assist
Dischargers as they identify their facility’s pollutant sources and implement
corrective actions and revise BMPs as necessary (Section XI.A.4 of this General
Permit).
This General Permit requires a combination of visual observations and analytical
monitoring. Visual observations provide Dischargers with immediate information
indicating the presence of many pollutants and their sources. Dischargers must
implement timely actions and revise BMPs as necessary (Section XI.A.4) when the
visual observations indicate pollutant sources have not been adequately addressed
in the SWPPP. Analytical monitoring provides an additional indication of the
presence and concentrations of pollutants in storm water discharge. Dischargers
are required to evaluate potential pollutant sources and corresponding BMPs and
revise the SWPPP appropriately when specific types of NAL exceedances occur as
described below.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

44

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
FIGURE 3: Compliance Determination Flowchart

2. Visual Observations
There are two major changes to the visual observation requirements in this General
Permit compared to the previous permit, which include:
a. Monthly Visual Observations
The previous permit required separate quarterly visual observations for
unauthorized and authorized non-storm water discharges. It did not require
periodic visual observations of the facility to determine whether all potential
pollutant sources were being adequately controlled with BMPs. Prior drafts of
this General Permit proposed the addition of pre-storm inspections. This was
met with great resistance by Dischargers because of the complexity and burden
of determining when a QSE would occur. Many of these Dischargers
recommended that monthly BMP and non-storm water discharge visual
observations should replace the proposed pre-storm inspections. This General
Permit merges all visual observations into a single monthly visual observation.
b. Sampling Event Visual Observations

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

45

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
The previous permit required monthly storm water visual observations. This
required Dischargers to conduct visual observations for QSEs that were not
being sampled since only two QSEs were required to be sampled in the previous
permit. As discussed below, the sampling requirement has been increased to
four QSEs within each reporting year with two QSEs required in each half of the
reporting year. We expect that this will result in more samples being collected
and analyzed, since most of California experiences, on average, at least two
QSEs per half year. This General Permit streamlines the storm water visual
observation requirement by linking the visual observations to the time of
sampling.
3. Sampling and Analysis
a. General
As part of the process for developing previous drafts of this General Permit, the
State Water Board considered comments from numerous stakeholders
concerning sampling and analysis. Sampling and analysis issues were the most
dominant of all issues raised in the comments.
The State Water Board received stakeholder comments that fall into three
primary categories concerning this General Permit’s sampling and analysis
approach:
i. Comments supporting an intensive water quality sampling and analysis
approach (with the goal of producing more accurate discharge-characterizing
and pollutant concentration data) as the primary method of determining
compliance with effluent limitations and receiving water limitations. Since this
approach requires large amounts of high quality data to accurately quantify the
characteristics of the discharges, it is referred to as the quantitative monitoring
approach. Stakeholders supporting the quantitative approach generally also
support the use of stringent NELs to evaluate compliance with this General
Permit;
ii. Comments supporting only visual observations as the primary method of
determining compliance: These stakeholders generally assert that storm water
sampling is an incomplete and not very cost effective means of determining
water quality impacts on the receiving waters; and,
iii. Comments supporting a combination of visual observations and cost-effective
water quality sampling and analysis approach (sampling and analysis that
would produce data indicating the presence of pollutants) to determine
compliance (similar to the previous permit’s approach). Since this approach
uses more qualitative information to describe the quality and characteristics of
the discharges, it is referred to as the qualitative monitoring approach.
Within each of the three categories, there are various recommendations and
rationales as to the exact monitoring frequencies, procedures and methods,
required to implement the approach. Stakeholders in favor of the quantitative
monitoring approach commented that it is the only reliable and meaningful
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

46

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
method of assuring that: (1) BMPs are effective in reducing or preventing
pollutants in storm water discharge in compliance with BAT/BCT, and (2) the
discharge is not causing or contributing to an exceedance of a water quality
standards. The stakeholders state that visual observations are not effective in
measuring pollutant concentrations nor is it effective in determining the presence
of colorless and/or odorless pollutants. The stakeholders state that qualitative
monitoring (and the use of indicator parameters) will not provide results useful for
calculating pollutant loading nor will it accurately characterize the discharge.
Stakeholders in favor of requiring only visual observations state that sampling
and analysis is unnecessary because (1) the previous permit did not include
NELs so the usefulness of sampling and analysis data is limited, (2) a significant
majority of Dischargers should be able to develop appropriate BMPs without
sampling and analysis data, (3) most pollutant sources and pollutants can be
detected and mitigated through visual observations, (4) the costs associated with
quantitative monitoring are excessive and disproportionate to any benefits, (5)
U.S. EPA’s storm water regulations do not require sampling, (6) The 2008 MSGP
relies heavily on visual observations and requires only a limited number of
specific industries to conduct sampling and analysis, and (7) the majority of
Dischargers are small businesses and do not have sufficient training or
understanding to perform accurate sampling and analysis.
Stakeholders in favor of requiring both visual observations and a cost-effective
qualitative monitoring program state that (1) both are within the means and
understanding of most Dischargers, and (2) monitoring results are useful for
evaluating a Discharger’s compliance without unnecessarily increasing the
burden on the Discharger and without subjecting Dischargers to non-technical
enforcement actions.
The State Water Board finds that it is feasible for the majority of Dischargers to
develop appropriate BMPs without having to perform large amounts of
quantitative monitoring, which can be very costly. In the absence of
implementing NELs, the State Water Board has determined that the infeasibility
and costs associated with developing quantitative monitoring programs at each
of thousands industrial facilities currently permitted would outweigh the limited
benefits. The primary difficulty associated with requiring intensive quantitative
monitoring lies with the cost and the difficulty of accurately sampling industrial
storm water discharges.
Stakeholders that support quantitative monitoring believe the data is necessary
to determine pollutant loading, concentration, or contribution to water quality
violations. In order to derive data necessary to support those goals, however,
the data must be of high quality, meaning it must be accurate, precise and have
an intact chain of custody. Many industrial facilities do not have well-defined
storm water conveyance systems for sample collection. Storm water frequently
discharges from multiple locations through sheet flow into nearby streets and
adjoining properties. Sample collection from a portion of the sheet flow is an
inexact measurement since not all of the flow is sampled. Requiring every
Discharger to construct well-defined storm water conveyances may cost
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

47

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per facility
depending on the size and nature of each industrial facility. At many facilities,
the construction of such conveyances may also violate local building codes,
create safety hazards, cause flooding, or increase erosion. In addition,
eliminating sheet flow at some facilities could result in increased pollutant
concentrations.
The State Water Board has considered the complexity and costs associated with
quantitative monitoring. Unlike continuous point source discharges (e.g., publicly
owned treatment works), storm water discharges are variable in intensity and
duration. The concentration of pollutants discharged at any one time is
dependent on many complex variables. The largest concentration of pollutants
would be expected to discharge earlier in the storm event and taper off as
discharges continue. Therefore, effective quantitative monitoring of storm water
discharges would require that storm water discharges be collected and sampled
until most or all of the pollutants have been discharged. Multiple samples would
need to be collected over many hours. To determine the pollutant mass loading,
the storm water discharge flow must also be measured each time a sample is
collected.
For a quantitative monitoring approach to yield useful pollutant loading
information, the installation of automatic sampling devices and flow meters at
each discharge location would usually be necessary. In addition, qualified
individuals would be needed to conduct the monitoring procedures, and to handle
and maintain flow meters and automatic samplers are needed. A significant
majority of storm water Dischargers under this General Permit do not possess
the skills to manage such an effort. Dischargers will bear the cost of employing
and/or training on-site staff to do this work, or the cost of contracting with
environmental consultants and acquiring the required flow meters and automatic
samplers. The cost to Dischargers to conduct quantitative monitoring varies
depending on the number of outfalls, the number of storms, the length of each
storm, the amount of staff training, and other variables.
To address these concerns, this General Permit includes a number of new items
that bridge the gap between the previous permit’s qualitative monitoring and the
quantitative approach recommended by many commenters. This General Permit
includes a requirement for all Dischargers to designate a QISP when they enter
Level 1 status due to NAL exceedances. The QISP is required to be trained to:
(1) more accurately identify discharge locations representative of the facility
storm water discharge (2) select and implement appropriate sampling procedures
(3) evaluate and develop additional BMPs to reduce or prevent pollutants in the
industrial storm water discharges.
Dischargers that fail to develop and implement an adequate Monitoring
Implementation Plan that includes both visual observations and sampling and
analysis, are in violation of this General Permit. Dischargers that fail to comply
with Level 1 status and Level 2 status ERA requirements, triggered by NAL
exceedances, are in violation of this General Permit.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

48

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Water Code section 13383.5 requires that the State Water Board include (1)
standardized methods for collection of storm water samples, (2) standardized
methods for analysis of storm water samples, (3) a requirement that every
sample analysis be completed by a State certified laboratory or in the field in
accordance with Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols, (4) a
standardized reporting format, (5) standardized sampling and analysis programs
for QA/QC, and (6) minimum detection limits. The monitoring requirements in
this General Permit (Section XI), as supplemented by SMARTS, address these
requirements.
Under the previous permit, many Dischargers did not developed adequate
sample collection and handling procedures, decreasing the quality of analytical
results. In addition, Dischargers often selected inappropriate test methods,
method detection limits, or reporting units. This General Permit requires all
Dischargers to identify discharge locations that are representative of industrial
storm water discharges and develop and implement reasonable sampling
procedures to ensure that samples are not mishandled or contaminated.
It is infeasible for the State Water Board to provide a single comprehensive set of
sample collection and handling procedures/instructions due to the wide variation
in storm water conveyance and collection systems in use at facilities around the
state. As an alternative, Attachment H of this General Permit provides minimum
storm water sample collection and handling instructions that pertain to all
facilities. Dischargers are required to develop facility-specific sample collection
and handling procedures based upon these minimum requirements. Table 2 in
this General Permit provides the minimum test methods that shall be used for a
variety of common pollutants. Dischargers must be aware that use of more
sensitive test methods (e.g., U.S. EPA Method 1631 for Mercury) may be
necessary if they discharge to an impaired water body or are otherwise required
to do so by the Regional Water Board. This General Permit allows Dischargers
to propose an analytical test method for any parameter or pollutant that does not
have an analytical test method specified in Table 2 or in SMARTS. Dischargers
may also propose analytical test methods with substantially similar or more
stringent method detection limits than existing approved analytical test methods.
Upon approval, SMARTS will be updated over time to add additional acceptable
analytical test methods.
The previous permit allowed Dischargers to reduce sampling analysis
requirements for substantially similar drainage areas by either (1) combining
samples for an unspecified maximum number of substantially similar drainage
areas, or (2) sampling a reduced number of substantially similar drainage areas.
The State Water Board provided this procedure to reduce analytical costs. The
complexity associated with determining substantially similar drainage areas has
led Dischargers to produce various, and sometimes questionable, analytical
schemes. In addition, the previous permit did not establish a maximum number
of samples that could be combined.
To standardize sample collection and analysis as required by Water Code
section 13383.5, while continuing to offer a reduced analytic cost option, these
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

49

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
requirements have been revised. Section XI.B.4 of this General Permit requires
Dischargers to collect samples from all discharge locations regardless of whether
the discharges are substantially similar or not. Dischargers may analyze each
sample collected, or may analyze a combined sample consisting of equal
volumes, collected from as many as four (4) substantially similar discharge
locations. A minimum of one combined sample shall be analyzed for every one
(1) to four (4) discharge locations, and the samples shall be combined in the lab
in accordance with Section XI.C.5 of this General Permit.
Representative sampling is only allowed for sheet flow discharges or discharges
from drainage areas with multiple discharge locations. Dischargers shall select
the appropriate location(s) to be sampled and intervals necessary to obtain
samples representative of storm water associated with industrial activities
generated within the corresponding drainage area. Dischargers are not required
to sample discharge locations that have no exposure of industrial activities or
materials as defined in Section XVII of this General Permit within the
corresponding drainage area. However, Dischargers are required to conduct the
monthly visual observations regardless of the selected locations to be sampled.
This General Permit defines a QSE as a precipitation event that produces a
discharge from any drainage area that is preceded by 48 consecutive hours
without a discharge from any drainage area. The previous permit did not include
a QSE definition; instead, it utilized a different approach to defining the storm
events that were required to be sampled. Under the previous permit, eligible
storm events were storm events that occurred after three consecutive working
days of dry weather. The three consecutive working days of dry weather
definition in the previous permit led Dischargers to miss many opportunities to
sample. Some Dischargers were unable to collect samples from two storm
events in certain years under the previous definition. To resolve this difficulty,
this General Permit increases the sampling requirements to four (4) QSEs per
year, while decreasing the number of days without a discharge, resulting in
additional opportunities for Dischargers to sample. Additionally, by eliminating
the previous permit’s reference to “dry weather,” this General Permit allows some
precipitation to occur between QSEs so long as there is no discharge from any
drainage area. This change will result in more QSE sampling opportunities.
To improve clarity and consistency, the definitions contained in other storm water
permits were considered with the goal of developing a standard definition for ‘dry
weather’ for this General Permit. The 2008 MSGP sets a “measurable storm
event” as one that produces at least 0.1 inches of precipitation and results in an
actual discharge after 72 hours (three days) of dry weather. The State of
Washington defines a “qualifying storm event” as a storm with at least 0.1 inches
of precipitation preceded by at least 24 hours of no measurable precipitation,
mirroring the definition found in the previous MSGP (2000 version). The State of
Oregon requires that samples be taken in the first 12 hours of discharge and no
less than 14 days apart. Review of other permits concludes that there is not a
single commonly used approach to triggering sampling in industrial general
permits. Therefore an enforceable sampling trigger is included in this General
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

50

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
permit that requires Dischargers to sample four storm events within each
reporting year.
b. Effluent Water Quality Sampling and Analysis Parameters
Dischargers are required to sample and analyze their effluent for certain
parameters. “Parameter” is a term used in laboratory analysis circles to
represent a distinct, reportable measure of a particular type. For example,
ammonia, hexavalent chromium, total nitrogen and chemical oxygen demand are
all parameters that a laboratory can analyze storm water effluent for and report a
quantity back. A parameter is also an indicator of pollution. In this General
Permit, pH, total suspended solids and chemical oxygen demand are examples
of indicator parameters. They are not direct measures of a water quality problem
or condition of pollution but can be used to indicate a problem or condition of
pollution. Indicator parameters can also be used to indicate practices and/or the
presence of materials at a facility to bring forth information for compliance
evaluation processes, like annual report review and inspection. For example,
chemical oxygen demand concentrations can indicate the presence of dissolved
organic compounds, like residual food from collected recycling materials.
Minimum parameter-specific monitoring is required for Dischargers, regardless of
whether additional facility-specific parameters are selected. This General Permit
requires some parameters to be analyzed and reported for the duration of permit
coverage to develop comparable sampling data over time and over many storm
events and to demonstrate compliance. The Regional Water Boards may use
such data to evaluate individual facility compliance and assess the differences
between various industries. Accordingly, the parameters selected correspond to
a broad range of industrial facilities, are inexpensive to sample and analyze, and
have sampling and analysis methods which are easy to understand and
implement. Some analytical methods for field measurements of some
parameters, such as pH, may be performed using relatively inexpensive field
instruments and provides an immediate alert to possible pollutant sources.
The following three selected minimum parameters are considered indicator
parameters, regardless of facility type. These parameters typically provide
indication and/or the correlation of whether other pollutants are present in storm
water discharge. These parameters were selected for the following reasons:
i.

pH is a numeric measurement of the hydrogen-ion concentration. Many
industrial facilities handle materials that can affect pH. A sample is
considered to have a neutral pH if it has a value of 7. At values less than 7,
water is considered acidic; above 7 it is considered alkaline or basic. Pure
rain water in California typically has a pH value of approximately 7.

ii.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is an indicator of the un-dissolved solids that
are present in storm water discharge. Sources of TSS include sediment from
erosion, and dirt from impervious (i.e., paved) areas. Many pollutants adhere
to sediment particles; therefore, reducing sediment will reduce the amount of
these pollutants in storm water discharge.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

51

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
iii.

Oil and Grease (O&G) is a measure of the amount of O&G present in storm
water discharge. At very low concentrations, O&G can cause sheen on the
surface of water. O&G can adversely affect aquatic life, create unsightly
floating material, and make water undrinkable. Sources of O&G include, but
are not limited to, maintenance shops, vehicles, machines and roadways.
The previous permit allowed Dischargers to analyze samples for either O&G or
Total Organic Carbon (TOC). This General Permit requires all Dischargers
analyze samples for O&G since almost all Dischargers with outdoor activities
operate equipment and vehicles can potentially generate insoluble oils and
greases. Dischargers with water soluble-based organic oils may be required to
also test for TOC. The TOC and O&G tests are not synonymous, duplicative or
interchangeable.
This General Permit removes the requirement to analyze for specific
conductance as part of the minimum analytic parameters. Specific conductance
is not required by U.S. EPA for any industry type. Additionally, stakeholder
comments indicate that there are many non-industrial sources that may cause
high specific conductance and interfere with the efficacy of the test. For
example, salty air deposition that occurs at facilities in coastal areas may raise
the specific conductance in water over 500 micro-ohms per centimeter
(µhos/cm). Dischargers are not prevented from performing a specific
conductance test as a screening tool if it is useful to detect a particular pollutant
of concern as required (e.g. salinity).
This General Permit requires Dischargers subject to Subchapter N ELGs for pH
to analyze for pH using approved test methods in accordance with 40 Code of
Federal Regulations part 136. These federal regulations specify that analysis of
pH must take place within 15 minutes of sample collection. All other Dischargers
may screen for pH using wide range litmus pH paper or other equivalent pH test
kits within 15 minutes of sample collection. If in any reporting year a Discharger
has two or more pH results outside of the range of 6.0 – 9.0 pH units, that
Discharger is required to comply with the approved test methods in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations part 136 in subsequent reporting years.
For almost all Dischargers, obtaining laboratory analysis within 15 minutes is
logistically impossible. For many Dischargers, maintaining a calibrated pH meter
is difficult, labor intensive, and error prone. Screening for pH will limit the number
of additional Dischargers required to comply with 40 Code of Federal Regulations
part 136 methods to those that have pH measures outside the range of 6.0-9.0
pH units. The use of wide range litmus pH paper or other equivalent pH test kits
is not as accurate as a calibrated pH meter, however litmus paper is allowed in
the 2008 MSGP, and when used properly it can provide an accurate screening
measure to determine if further more-accurate pH sampling is necessary to
determine compliance.
Review of available monitoring data shows that storm water discharges from
most types of industrial facilities comply with the pH range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units.
There are specific types of industries, like cement or concrete manufacturers that

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

52

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
have shown a trend of higher pH values very close to 9.0 pH units. Rather than
require all industries as a whole to monitor with the more costly 40 Code of
Federal Regulations part 136 methods, this General Permit establishes a
triggering mechanism for these more advanced pH test methods. The Regional
Water Boards retain their authority to require more accurate test methods. Once
a Discharger triggers the requirement to use the more accurate testing methods
in 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 136, the Discharger may not revert back
to screening for pH for the duration of coverage under this General Permit.
In the early 1990s, U.S. EPA, through its group application program, evaluated
nationwide monitoring data and developed the listed parameters and SIC
associations shown in Table 1 of this General Permit. The 2008 MSGP requires
that Dischargers analyze storm water effluent for the listed parameters under
certain conditions. In addition to the parameters in Table 1 of this General
Permit, Dischargers are required to select additional facility-specific analytical
parameters to be monitored, based upon the types of materials that are both
exposed to and mobilized by contact with storm water. Dischargers must, at a
minimum, understand how to identify industrial materials that are handled
outdoors and which of those materials can easily dissolve or be otherwise
transported via storm water.
The Regional Water Boards have the authority to revise the monitoring
requirements for an individual facility or group of facilities based on site-specific
factors including geographic location, industry type, and potential to pollute. For
example, the Los Angeles Regional Water Board required all dismantlers (SIC
Code 5015) within their jurisdiction to monitor for copper and zinc instead of
aluminum and iron during the term of the previous permit. SMARTS will be
programmed to incorporate any monitoring revisions required by the Regional
Water Boards. Dischargers will receive email notification of the monitoring
requirement revision and their SMARTS analytical reporting input screen will
display the corresponding revisions. Dischargers may add, but not otherwise
modify, the sampling parameters on their SMARTS input screen.
Dischargers are also required to identify pollutants that may cause or contribute
to an existing exceedance of any applicable water quality standards for the
receiving water. This General Permit requires Dischargers to control its
discharge as necessary to meet the receiving water limitations, and to select
additional monitoring parameters that are representative of industrial materials
handled at the facility (regardless of the degree of storm water contact or relative
mobility) that may be related to pollutants causing a water body to be impaired.
4. Methods and Exceptions
a. Storm Water Discharge Locations
Dischargers are required to visually observe and collect samples of industrial
storm water discharges from each drainage area at all discharge locations.
These samples must be representative of the storm water discharge leaving
each drainage area. This is a change from the previous permit which allowed a
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

53

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Discharger to reduce the number of discharge locations sampled if two or more
discharge locations were substantially similar.
Dischargers are required to identify, when practicable, alternate discharge
locations if: (1) the facility’s industrial drainage areas are affected by storm water
run-on from surrounding areas that cannot be controlled, or (2) discharge
locations are difficult to observe or sample (e.g. submerged discharge outlets,
dangerous discharge location accessibility).
b. Representative Sampling Reduction
Some stakeholders have indicated that there are unique circumstances where
sampling a subset of representative discharge locations fully characterizes the
full set of storm water discharges. Stakeholders provided examples related to
drainage areas with multiple discharge locations where sampling only a subset of
these discharge locations produces results that are representative of the
drainage areas’ storm water discharges. In such situations, this General Permit
allows Dischargers to reduce the number of discharge locations. For each
drainage area with multiple discharge locations (e.g. roofs with multiple
downspouts, loading/unloading areas with multiple storm drain inlets), the
Discharger may reduce the number of discharge locations to be sampled if the
conditions in Section XI.C.4 of this General Permit are met.
c. Qualified Combined Samples
Dischargers may combine samples from up to four (4) discharge locations if the
industrial activities within each drainage area and each drainage area’s physical
characteristics (i.e. grade, surface materials) are substantially similar.
Dischargers are required to provide documentation in the Monitoring
Implementation Plan supporting that the above conditions have been evaluated
and fulfilled. A Discharger may combine samples from more than four (4)
discharge locations only with approval from the appropriate Regional Water
Board.
d. Sample Collection and Visual Observation Exceptions
Dischargers are not required to collect samples or conduct visual observations
during dangerous weather conditions such as flooding or electrical storms, or
outside of scheduled facility operating hours. A Discharger is not precluded from
conducting sample collection activities or visual observations outside of
scheduled facility operating hours.
In the event that a Discharger is unable to collect the required samples or
conduct visual observations due to the above exceptions, the Discharger must
include an explanation of the conditions obstructing safe monitoring in its Annual
Report. If access to a discharge location is dangerous on a routine basis, a
Discharger must choose an alternative discharge location in accordance with
General Permit Section XI.C.3.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

54

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
e. Sampling Frequency Reduction
Facilities that do not have NAL exceedances for four (4) consecutive QSEs are
unlikely to pose a significant threat to water quality. If the storm water from these
facilities is also in full compliance with this General Permit, the Discharger is
eligible for a reduction in sampling frequency. The Sampling Frequency
Reduction allows a Discharger to decrease its monitoring from four (4) samples
within each reporting year to one (1) QSE within the first half of each reporting
year (July 1 to December 31) and one (1) QSE within the second half of each
reporting year (January 1 to June 30). If a Discharger has a subsequent NAL
exceedance after the Sampling Frequency Reduction, it must comply with the
original sampling requirements of this General Permit. Only Dischargers that
have baseline status or that have satisfied the Level 1 requirements are eligible
for this sampling and analysis reduction.
A Discharger requesting to reduce its sampling frequency shall certify and submit
a Sampling Frequency Reduction certification via SMARTS. The Sampling
Frequency Reduction certification shall include documentation that the General
Permit conditions for the Sampling Frequency Reduction have been satisfied.
Dischargers participating in a Compliance Group and certifying a Sampling
Frequency Reduction are only required to collect and analyze storm water
samples from one (1) QSE within each reporting year. These Dischargers must
receive year-round compliance assistance from their Compliance Group Leader
and must comply with all requirements of this General Permit.
5. Facilities Subject to Federal Storm Water Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs)
Federal regulations at Subchapter N establish ELGs for industrial storm water
discharges from facilities in eleven industrial sectors. For these facilities,
compliance with the ELGs constitutes compliance with the technology standard of
BPT, BAT, BCT, or New Source Performance Standards provided in the ELG for the
specified pollutants, and compliance with the technology-based requirements in this
General Permit for the specified pollutant.
K. Exceedance Response Actions (ERAs)
1. General
The previous permit did not incorporate the benchmarks from any of the MSGPs or
NALs for Dischargers to evaluate sampling results. Unlike the requirements for
industrial storm water discharges that cause or contribute to an exceedance of a
water quality standards, the previous permit did not provide definitions, procedures
or guidelines to assess sampling results. Many Regional Water Boards have
formally or informally notified Dischargers that exceedances of the MSGP
benchmarks should be used to determine whether additional BMPs are necessary.
However, there was considerable confusion as to the extent to which a Discharger
would be expected to implement actions in response to exceedances of these
values, and the timelines that had to be met to prevent an enforcement action. The
lack of specificity with regards to what constituted an exceedance, and what actions
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

55

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
are required in response to an exceedance, have been identified as a problem by
the Water Boards, industry and environmental stakeholders.
This General Permit contains two (2) types of NALs. Annual NALs function similarly
to, and are based upon, the values provided in the 2008 MSGP. Instantaneous
maximum NALs target hot spots or episodic discharges of pollutants and are
established based on California industrial storm water discharge monitoring data.
When a Discharger exceeds an NAL it is required to perform ERAs. The ERAs are
divided into two levels of responses and can generally be differentiated by the
number of years in which a facility’s discharge exceeds an NAL trigger. These two
levels are explained further in Section XII of this General Permit. This ERA process
provides Dischargers with an adaptive management-based process to develop and
implement cost-effective BMPs that are protective of water quality and compliant
with this General Permit. This process is also designed to provide Dischargers with
a more defined pathway towards full compliance.
The ERA requirements in this General Permit were developed using best
professional judgment and Water Board experience with the shortcomings of the
previous permit’s compliance procedures. Public comments received during State
Water Board hearings on the 2002, 2005, 2011, 2012 and 2013 draft permits, and
NPDES industrial storm water discharge permits from other states with well-defined
ERA requirements were also considered by the State Water Board.
The State Water Board presumes that one single NAL exceedance for a particular
parameter is not a clear indicator that a facility’s discharge is out of compliance with
the technology-based effluent limitations or receiving water limitations. This
presumption recognizes the highly variable nature of storm water discharge and the
limited value of a single quarterly grab sample to represent the quality of a facility’s
storm water discharge for an entire storm event and all other non-sampled storm
events. With this presumption, the State Water Board is addressing costly
monitoring requirements that do not bring forth valuable compliance and/or water
quality information.
2. NALs and NAL Exceedances
a. This General Permit contains two types of NAL exceedances as follows:
Annual NAL exceedance - the Discharger is required to calculate the
average annual concentration for each parameter using the results of all
sampling and analytical results for the entire facility for the reporting year
(i.e., all "effluent" data), and compare the annual average concentration to
the corresponding Annual NAL values in Table 2 of this General Permit. An
annual NAL exceedance occurs when the annual average of all the sampling
results for a parameter taken within a reporting year exceeds the annual NAL
value for that parameter listed in Table 2 of this General Permit.
For the purposes of calculating the annual average concentration for each
parameter, this General Permit considers any sampling result that are a
“non-detect” or less than the method detection limit as a zero (0) value. The
reason to use zero (0) values instead of the detected but not quantifiable
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

56

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
value (minimum level or reporting limit) is that these values are very low and
are unlikely to contribute to an NAL exceedance. There are statistical
methods to include low values when calculations are for numeric criteria and
limitations, however, the NALs in this General Permit are approximate values
used to provide feedback to the Discharger on site performance, and are not
numeric criteria or limitations. Therefore, it is not necessary to include these
insignificant values in the calculations for the NALs. For Dischargers using
composite sampling or flow measurement in accordance with standard
practices, the average concentrations shall be calculated in accordance with
the U.S. EPA Guidance Manual for the Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements of the NPDES Multi-Sector Storm Water General Permit.14
i.

Instantaneous maximum NAL exceedance - the Discharger is required to
compare all sampling and analytical results from each distinct sample
(individual or combined) to the corresponding instantaneous maximum NAL
values in Table 2 of this General Permit. An instantaneous maximum NAL
exceedance occurs when two or more analytical results from samples taken
for any parameter within a reporting year exceed the instantaneous
maximum NAL value (for TSS and O&G), or are outside of the instantaneous
maximum NAL range (for pH).

b. Instantaneous maximum NAL analysis
In its June 19, 2006 report, the Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts (Panel) made
several specific recommendations for how to set numeric limitations in future
industrial storm water general permit(s). For sites not subject to TMDLs, the
Panel suggested that the numeric values be based upon industry types or
categories, with the recognition that each industry has its own specific water
quality issues and financial viability. Furthermore, the Panel concluded:
To establish Numeric Limits for industrial sites requires a reliable
database, describing current emissions by industry types or categories,
and performance of existing BMPs. The current industrial permit has not
produced such a database for most industrial categories because of
inconsistencies in monitoring or compliance with monitoring
requirements. The Board needs to reexamine the existing data sources,
collect new data as required and for additional water quality parameters
(the current permit requires only pH, conductivity, total suspended solids,
and either total organic carbon or oil and grease) to establish practical
and achievable Numeric Limits.

The Panel suggested an alternative method that would allow the use of the
existing Water Board dataset to establish action levels, referred to as the “ranked
percentile” method. The Panel recommended:

14

U.S. EPA. NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document. Web. July 1992.
<http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0093.pdf>. [as of February 4, 2014].

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

57

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
The ranked percentile approach (also a statistical approach) relies on the
average cumulative distribution of water quality data for each constituent
developed from many water quality samples taken for many events at
many locations. The Action Level would then be defined as those
concentrations that consistently exceed some percentage of all water
quality events (i.e. the 90th percentile). In this case, action would be
required at those locations that were consistently in the outer limit (i.e.
uppermost 10th percentile) of the distribution of observed effluent
qualities from urban runoff.

After performing various data analysis exercises with the Water Board dataset,
State Water Board staff concluded that the Water Board dataset is not adequate
to calculate instantaneous NAL values using the Panel’s recommended method
for all of parameters that have annual NAL values based on the U.S. EPA
benchmarks. Additionally, public comments on the January 2011 draft of this
General Permit suggest that it is problematic to calculate NAL values based on
the existing data. Therefore, the Water Board dataset was not used to calculate
instantaneous NAL values for all parameters.
However, since all Dischargers regulated under the previous permit were
required to sample for TSS and O&G/TOC, State Water Board staff found that
the existing dataset for these parameters is of sufficient quality to calculate
instantaneous NAL values. State Water Board staff also found that this data was
less prone to what appear to be data input errors. The final dataset used to
calculate the instantaneous NALs in this General Permit had outlier values that
were eliminated from the dataset by using approved test method detection limits
ranges. The methods and corresponding method detection limit ranges used to
screen outliers are as follows:


O&G - EPA 413.1 Applicable Range: 5-1,000 mg/L



O&G - EPA 1664 Applicable Range: 5-1,000 mg/L



TSS - EPA 160.2 Applicable Range: 4-20,000 mg/L

The intent of the instantaneous maximum NAL is to identify specific drainage
areas of concern or episodic sources of pollution in industrial storm water that
may indicate inadequate storm water controls and/or water quality impacts. In
the effort to add instantaneous NAL exceedances to the ERA process, the State
Water Board explored different options for the development of an appropriate
value (i.e. percentile approach, benchmarks times a multiplier, confidence
intervals). The California Stormwater Quality Association’s comments on the
previous draft permit included a proposed method for calculating NAL values
using a percentile approach. The State Water Board researched and evaluated
this methodology and determined it is the most appropriate way to directly
compare available electronic sampling data from Dischargers regulated under
the previous permit. This percentile approach was used to establish the
instantaneous maximum NALs in this General Permit, for discharges to directly
compare with sampling results and identify drainage areas of water quality
concern.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

58

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
The percentile approach is a non-parametric approach identified in many
statistical textbooks for determining highly suspect values. Highly suspect values
are defined as values that exceed the limits of the outer fences of a box plot.
Upper limits of the outer fence are calculated by adding three times the interquartile range (25th to 75th percentiles) to the upper-end of the inter-quartile
range (the 75th percentile). The California Stormwater Quality Association
calculated an NAL value of 401 mg/L for TSS using the percentile approach
using the Water Board dataset. The State Water Board performed the same
analysis with the same Water Board dataset and calculated a slightly different
value of 396 mg/L; therefore, the instantaneous maximum NAL value for TSS of
400 mg/L was established. Appling the percentile approach to the existing O&G
data results in the instantaneous maximum NAL value for O&G of 25 mg/L.
The State Water Board compared existing sampling data to the instantaneous
maximum NAL values and concluded that seven (7) percent of the total samples
exceeded the highly suspected value for TSS and 7.8 percent of the total
samples exceeded the highly suspected value for O&G. These results suggest
that the instantaneous maximum NAL values are adequate to identify drainage
areas of concern statewide since they are not regularly exceeded. Using best
professional judgment, the State Water Board concludes that an exceedance of
these values twice within a reporting year is unlikely to be the result of storm
event variability or random BMP implementation problems, and the use of the
percentile approach is therefore appropriate.
Due to issues with the ranges of concentrations and the logarithmic nature of pH,
statistical methods cannot be applied to pH in the same ways as other
parameters. Review of storm water sampling data by the State Water Board and
other stakeholders has shown that pH is not typically a parameter of concern for
most industrial facilities. Accordingly, a range of pH limits established in
Regional Water Board Basin Plans is implemented in this General Permit for the
instantaneous maximum NAL values. Most Basin Plans set a water quality
objective of 6.0 - 9.0 pH units for water bodies, an exceedance outside the range
of 6.0 - 9.0 pH units is consistent with the water quality concerns for pH among
Regional Water Boards. An industrial facility with proper BMP implementation is
expected to have industrial storm water discharges within the range of 6.0 - 9.0
pH units.
High concentrations of TSS and O&G, or pH values outside the range of 6.0 –
9.0 pH units, in a discharge may be an indicator of potential BMP implementation
or receiving water quality concerns with other pollutants with parameters that do
not have an instantaneous maximum NAL value. The State Water Board may
consider instantaneous maximum NAL values for other parameters in a
subsequent reissuance of this General Permit, based on data collected during
this General Permit term.
The percentile approach is considered by many stakeholders to be the best
method to evaluate BMP performance and general effluent quality in a
community or population where the vast majority of the industrial facilities are
implementing sufficient pollutant control measures. The Water Board’s current
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

59

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
dataset does not provide a way of evaluating actual BMP implementation at each
facility when analyzing the data; therefore the monitoring information reported
during the previous permit term cannot be linked to compliance with technologybased standards. The State Water Board intends to use data collected during
this General Permit term to evaluate the percentile approach, improve the quality
of collected data for other parameters, and further develop an understanding of
how reported data relates to implemented BMP-control technologies.
Under this General Permit, a Discharger enters Level 1 status and must fulfill the
Level 1 status ERA requirements following its first occurrence of any NAL
exceedance. Level 2 status ERA requirements follow the second occurrence of
an NAL exceedance for the same parameter in a subsequent reporting year.
This ERA process provides Dischargers with an adaptive management-based
process to develop and implement cost-effective BMPs that are protective of
water quality and compliant with this General Permit. This General Permit’s ERA
process is designed to have a well-defined compliance end-point. It is not a
violation of this General Permit to exceed the NAL values; it is a violation of the
permit, however, to fail to comply with the Level 1 status and Level 2 status ERA
requirements in the event of NAL exceedances.
The State Water Board acknowledges that storm water discharge concentrations
are often highly variable and dependent upon numerous circumstances such as
storm size, the time elapsed since the last storm, seasonal activities, and the
time of sample collection. Since there are potential enforcement consequences
for failure to comply with this General Permit’s ERA process, the State Water
Board’s intention is to use NAL exceedances to solely require Dischargers with
recurring annual NAL exceedances or drainage areas that produce recurring
instantaneous maximum NAL exceedances to be subject to the follow-up ERA
requirements.
If NALs exceedances do not occur, the State Water Board generally expects that
the Discharger has implemented sufficient BMPs to control storm water pollution.
When NAL exceedances do occur, however, the potential that the Discharger
may not have implemented appropriate and/or sufficient BMPs increases, and
the Discharger is required to implement escalating levels of ERAs. If NAL
exceedances occur, this General Permit requires Dischargers to evaluate and
potentially install additional BMPs, or re-evaluate and improve existing BMPs to
be in compliance with this General Permit.
3. Baseline Status
At the beginning of a Discharger’s NOI coverage under this General Permit, the
Discharger has Baseline status. A Discharger demonstrating compliance with all
NALs will remain at Baseline status and is not required to complete Level 1 status
and Level 2 status ERA requirements.
If a Discharger has returned to Baseline status (from Level 2 status) and additional
NAL exceedances occur, the Discharger goes into Level 1 status, then potentially
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

60

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Level 2 status. Dischargers do not go directly into Level 2 status from Baseline
status.
4. Level 1 Status
Regardless of when an NAL exceedance occurs during Baseline status, a
Discharger’s status changes from Baseline status to Level 1 status on July 1 of the
subsequent reporting year. By October 1 following the commencement of Level 1
status, the Discharger is required to appoint a QISP to assist with the completion of
the Level 1 Evaluation. The Level 1 Evaluation must include a review of the facility’s
SWPPP for compliance with the effluent and receiving water limitations of this
General Permit, an evaluation of the industrial pollutant sources at the facility that
are or may be related to the NAL exceedance(s), and identification of any additional
BMPs that will eliminate future exceedances. When conducting the Level 1
Evaluation, a Discharger must ensure that all potential pollutant sources that could
be causing or contributing to the NAL exceedance(s) are fully characterized, that the
current BMPs are adequately described, that employees responsible for
implementing BMPs are appropriately trained, and that internal procedures are in
place to track that BMPs are being implemented as designed in the SWPPP. A
Discharger is additionally required to evaluate the need for additional BMPs. Level
1 ERAs are designed to provide the Discharger the opportunity to improve existing
BMPs or add additional BMPs to comply with the requirements of this General
Permit.
By January 1 following commencement of Level 1 status, a Discharger is required to
certify and submit via SMARTS a Level 1 ERA Report prepared by a QISP. The
Level 1 ERA Report must contain a summary of the Level 1 Evaluation, all new or
revised BMPs added to the SWPPP.
In most cases, the State Water Board believes that Level 1 status BMPs will be
operationally related rather than structural and, therefore can be implemented
without delay. Recognizing that a Discharger should not be penalized for sampling
results obtained before implementing BMPs, sampling results for parameters and
their corresponding drainage areas that caused the NAL exceedance up to October
1 or the date the BMPs were implemented, whichever is sooner, will not be used for
calculating NAL exceedances. Although this General Permit allows up to January 1
to implement Level 1 status BMPs, the State Board has chosen an interim date of
October 1 to encourage more timely Level 1 BMP implementation. Dischargers who
implement Level 1 BMPs after October 1 may risk obtaining subsequent sampling
results that may cause them to go into Level 2 status.
5. Level 2 Status
Level 2 ERAs are required during any subsequent reporting year in which the same
parameter(s) has an NAL exceedance (annual average or instantaneous maximum),
if this occurs, a Discharger’s status changes from Level 1 status to Level 2 status on
July 1 of the subsequent reporting year. Dischargers with Level 2 status must
further evaluate BMP options for their facility. Dischargers may have to implement
additional BMPs, which may include physical, structural, or mechanical devices that
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

61

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
are intended to prevent pollutants from contacting storm water. Examples of such
controls include, but are not limited to:


Enclosing and/or covering outdoor pollutant sources within a building or under a
roofed or tarped outdoor area.



Physically separating the pollutant sources from contact with run-on of
uncontaminated storm water.



Devices that direct contaminated storm water to appropriate treatment BMPs
(e.g., discharge to sanitary sewer as allowed by local sewer authority).



Treatment BMPs including, but not limited to, detention ponds, oil/water
separators, sand filters, sediment removal controls, and constructed wetlands.

Dischargers may select the most cost-effective BMPs to control the discharge of
pollutants in industrial storm water discharges. Where appropriate, BMPs can be
designed and targeted for various pollutant sources (e.g., providing overhead
coverage for one potential pollutant while discharging to a detention basin for
another source may be the most cost-effective solution).
a. Level 2 ERA Action Plans
The State Water Board acknowledges that there may be circumstances that
make it difficult, if not impossible, for a Discharger to immediately implement
additional BMPs. For example, it may take time to get a contract for construction
in place, obtain necessary building permits, and design and construct the BMPs.
Dischargers may also suspect that pollutants are from a non-industrial or natural
background source and need time to study their site. A Discharger is required to
certify and submit an Action Plan prepared by a QISP via SMARTS by January 1
following the reporting year in which the NAL exceedance that resulted in the
Discharger entering Level 2 occurred. The Level 2 ERA Action Plan requires a
Discharger to propose actions necessary to complete the Level 2 ERA Technical
Report, the demonstrations the Discharger has selected, and propose a time
frame for implementation.
If a Discharger changes the QISP assisting with the Level 2 ERA requirements
this General Permit requires the Discharger to update the QISP information via
SMARTS. Current information on individuals assisting Dischargers with
compliance of this General Permit provides the Water Boards with the necessary
contact information if there are questions on the submitted documents, and for
possible verification of a QISP’s certification.
Dischargers are required to address each Level 2 NAL exceedance in an Action
Plan. The State Water Board recognizes that Dischargers with Level 2 status
may have multiple parameters or facility areas that have Level 2 NAL
exceedances and the timing of the exceedances may make it very difficult to
address all Level 2 NAL exceedances in one Action Plan. When Level 2 ERA
exceedances occur in subsequent reporting years, after an Action Plan is

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

62

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
certified and submitted, a Discharger will need to develop an Action Plan for this
new Level 2 NAL exceedance. This General Permit defines new Level 2 NAL
exceedances as an exceedance for a new parameter in any drainage area at the
facility, or an exceedance for the same parameter being addressed in an existing
Action Plan, but where the exceedance occurred in a different drainage area than
identified in the existing Action Plan.
b. Level 2 ERA Technical Reports
The Level 2 ERA Technical Report contains three different options that require a
Discharger to submit demonstrations showing the cause of the NAL
exceedance(s). This General Permit requires a Discharger to appoint a QISP to
prepare the Level 2 ERA Technical Reports. 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 following three demonstration options in their Level 2 ERA Technical Report
when appropriate. A Discharger is only required to annually update its Level 2
ERA Technical Report when necessary as defined in Section XII.D.3.c of this
General Permit, and is not required to annually re-certify and re-submit the entire
Level 2 ERA Technical Report. If there are no changes prompting an update of
the Level 2 ERA Technical Report, as specified in Section XII.D.3.c of this
General Permit, the Discharger will provide this certification in the Annual Report
that there have been no changes warranting re-submittal of the Level 2 ERA
Technical Report.
i.

Industrial Activity BMPs Demonstration
The Industrial Activity BMPs Demonstration is for the following:


Dischargers who decided to implement additional BMPs that are expected
to eliminate future NAL exceedance(s) and that have been implemented in
order to achieve compliance with the technology-based effluent limitations
of this General Permit, and



Dischargers who decided to implement additional BMPs that may not
eliminate future NAL exceedance(s) and that have been implemented in
order to achieve compliance with the technology-based effluent limitations
of this General Permit.

When preparing the Industrial Activity BMPs Demonstration, the QISP shall
identify and evaluate all individual pollutant source(s) associated with
industrial activity that are or may be related to an NAL exceedance and all
designed, information on the drainage areas associated with the Level 2 NAL
exceedances, and installed BMPs that are implemented to reduce or prevent
pollutants in industrial storm water discharges in compliance with this General
Permit.
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

63

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
If an Industrial Activity BMPs Demonstration is submitted as the Level 2 ERA
Technical Report and the Discharger is able to show reductions in pollutant
concentrations below the NALs for four (4) subsequent consecutive QSEs,
the Discharger returns to Baseline Status. A Discharger that submits an
Industrial Activity BMPs Demonstration but has not installed additional BMPs
that are expected to eliminate future NAL exceedance(s) will remain with
Level 2 status but is not subject to additional ERAs unless directed by the
Regional Water Board.
ii. Non-Industrial Pollutant Source Demonstration
A Non-Industrial Pollutant Source Demonstration is for a Discharger to
demonstrate that the pollutants causing the NAL exceedances are not related
to industrial activities conducted at the facility, and additional BMPs at the
facility will not contribute to the reduction of pollutant concentrations.
Dischargers including the Non-Industrial Pollutant Demonstration in their
Level 2 ERA Technical Report shall have a QISP determine that the sources
of non-industrial pollutants in storm water discharges are not from industrial
activity or natural background sources within the facility.
Sources of non-industrial pollutants that are discharged separately and are
not comingled with storm water associated with industrial activity are not
considered subject to this General Permit’s requirements. When pollutants
from non-industrial sources are comingled with storm water associated with
industrial activity, the Discharger is responsible for all the pollutants in the
combined discharge unless the technical report clearly demonstrates that the
NAL exceedances due to the combined discharge are solely attributable to
the non-industrial sources. The pollutant may also be present due to
industrial activities, in which case the Discharger must demonstrate that the
pollutant contribution from the industrial activities by itself does not result in
an NAL exceedance. In most cases, the Non-Industrial Pollutant Source
Demonstration will contain sampling data and analysis distinguishing the
pollutants from non-industrial sources from the pollutants generated by
industrial activity.
Once the Level 2 ERA Technical Report, including this demonstration is
certified and submitted via SMARTS, the Discharger has satisfied all the
requirements necessary for that pollutant for ERA purposes. A Discharger
that submits a Non-Industrial Pollutant Demonstration remains with Level 2
status but is not subject to additional ERAs unless directed by the Regional
Water Board.
iii. Natural Background Pollutant Source Demonstration
The benchmark monitoring schedule in section 6.2.1.2 of the 2008 MSGP
allows a Discharger to determine that the exceedance of the benchmark is
attributable solely to the presence of that pollutant in the natural background.
A Discharger making this determination is not required to perform corrective
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

64

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
action or additional benchmark monitoring providing that the other 2008
MSGP requirements are met. The 2008 MSGP Fact Sheet requires
Dischargers to include in the following in the SWPPP: 1) map(s) showing the
reference site location, facility, available land cover information, reference site
and test site elevation, available geology and soil information for reference
and test sites, photographs showing site vegetation, site reconnaissance
survey data and records. This General Permit requires this information to be
included in the Natural Background Pollutant Source Demonstration in
Section XII.D.2.c.
The Natural Background Pollutant Source Demonstration in this General
Permit is for a Discharger that can demonstrate that pollutants causing the
NAL exceedances are not related to industrial activities conducted at the
facility, and are solely attributable to the presence of those pollutants in
natural background. The pollutant may also be present due to industrial
activities, in which case the Discharger must demonstrate that the pollutant
contribution from the industrial activities by itself does not result in an NAL
exceedance. Natural background pollutants include those substances that
are naturally occurring in soils or groundwater that have not been disturbed
by industrial activities. Natural background pollutants do not include legacy
pollutants from earlier activity on a site, or pollutants in run-on from
neighboring sources which are not naturally occurring. Dischargers are not
required to reduce concentrations for pollutants in the effluent caused by
natural background sources if these pollutants concentrations are not
increased by industrial activity.
The 2008 MSGP Fact Sheet states that the background concentration of a
pollutant in runoff from a non-human impacted reference site in the same
watershed must be determined by evaluation of ambient monitoring data or
by using information from a peer-reviewed publication or a local, state, or
federal government publication specific to runoff or storm water in the
immediate region. Studies that are in other geographic areas, or are clearly
based on different topographies or soils, are not sufficient to meet this
requirement. When such data is not available, and there are no known
sources of the pollutant, the background concentration should be assumed to
be zero.
In cases where historic monitoring data from a site are used for generating a
natural background concentration, and the site is no longer accessible or able
to meet reference site acceptability criteria, the Discharger must submit
documentation (e.g., historic land use maps) indicating the site did meet
reference site criteria (such as indicating the absence of human activity)
during the time data collection occurred.
Once the Level 2 ERA Technical Report, including a Natural Background
Demonstration meeting the conditions in Section XII.D.2.c of this General
Permit is certified and submitted via SMARTS, the Discharger is no longer
responsible for the identified background parameters(s) in the corresponding
drainage area(s). A Discharger that submits this type of demonstration will
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

65

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
remain with Level 2 status but is not subject to additional ERAs unless
directed by the Regional Water Board.
c. Level 2 ERA Implementation Extension
The State Water Board recognizes that there may be circumstances that make
implementation of all necessary actions required in the Level 2 ERAs by the
permitted due dates infeasible. In such circumstances a Discharger may request
additional time by submitting a Level 2 ERA Implementation Extension. The
Level 2 ERA Implementation Extension will automatically allow Dischargers up to
an additional six (6) months to complete the tasks identified in the Level 2 ERA
Action Plans while remaining in compliance with this General Permit. The Level
2 ERA Implementation Extension is subject to Regional Water Board review. If
additional time is needed beyond the initial six (6) month extension, a second
Level 2 ERA Implementation Extension may be submitted but is not effective
unless it is approved by the Water Board.
L. Inactive Mining Operations
Inactive mining sites may need coverage under this General Permit. Inactive mining
operations are mining sites, or portions of sites, where mineral mining and/or dressing
occurred in the past with an identifiable Discharger (owner or operator), but are no
longer actively operating. Inactive mining sites do not include sites where mining claims
are being maintained prior to disturbances associated with the extraction, beneficiation,
or processing of mined materials. A Discharger has the option to certify and submit via
SMARTS that its inactive mining operations meet the conditions for an Inactive Mining
Operation Certification in Section XIII of this General Permit. The Discharger must have
a SWPPP for an inactive mine signed (wet signature with license number) by a
California licensed professional engineer. The Inactive Mining Operation Certification in
this General Permit is in lieu of performing certain identified permit requirements. This
General Permit requires an annual inspection of an inactive mining site and an annual
re-certification of the SWPPP. Any significant updates to the SWPPP shall be signed
(wet signature and license number) by a California license professional engineer. The
Discharger must certify and submit via SMARTS any significantly revised SWPPP within
30 days of the revision(s)
M. Compliance Groups and Compliance Group Leaders
Group Monitoring, as defined in the previous permit, has been eliminated in this General
Permit and replaced with a new compliance option called Compliance Groups. The
Compliance Group option differs from Group Monitoring as it requires (1) all
Dischargers participating in a Compliance Group (Compliance Group Participants)
sample two QSEs each year, (2) the Compliance Group Leader to inspect each
Participant’s facility within each reporting year, (3) the Compliance Group Leader must
complete a State Water Board sponsored or approved training program for Compliance
Group Leaders, and (4) the Compliance Group Leader to prepare Consolidated Level 1
ERA Reports, and individual Level 2 ERA Action Plans and Technical Reports. The
Compliance Group option is similar to Group Monitoring as it retains a mechanism that
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

66

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
allows Dischargers of the same industry type to comply with this General Permit through
shared resources in a cost saving manner.
This General Permit emphasizes sampling and analysis as a means to evaluate BMP
performance and overall compliance, and the significantly reduced sampling
requirements previously afforded to Group Monitoring Participants (two samples within
a five-year period) does not provide the necessary information to achieve these goals.
However, a moderate reduction in sampling requirements is included as an incentive for
Compliance Group Participants while concurrently requiring sufficient individual facility
sampling data to determine compliance. A Compliance Group Leader is required to
provide the necessary sampling training and guidance to the Compliance Group
Participants. This additional training requirement will increase sampling data quality
that will offset the reduced sampling frequency for Compliance Groups.
Participation in Compliance Groups will provide additional cost savings for Dischargers
in the preparation of the Consolidated Level 1 ERA Reports, and for Compliance Group
Leader assistance in preparing the Level 2 ERA Action Plans and the individual Level 2
ERA Technical Reports. It is likely that many of the pollutant sources causing NAL
exceedances, and the corresponding BMP cost evaluation and selection, when
appropriate, will overlap for groups of facilities in a similar industry type. When these
overlaps occur, a Compliance Group Leader should be able to more efficiently evaluate
the pollutant sources and BMP options, and prepare the necessary reports.
The State Water Board believes that it is necessary for Compliance Group Leaders to
have a higher level of industrial storm water compliance and training experience than
the expectations of a QISP. Many stakeholder comments on this General Permit
suggested various certifications to provide this higher level of experience; however, the
State Water Board believes a process similar to the Trainer of Record process for the
Construction General Permit training program will develop Compliance Group Leaders
with the appropriate level of experience to fulfill the necessary qualifications.
The intent of the Compliance Groups is to have only one or a small number of
Compliance Groups per industrial sector. The process for becoming a QISP trainer
and/or a Compliance Group Leader is purposely similar to the Construction General
Permit trainer of record process for consistency within storm water regulatory leaders.
The formal process to qualify to conduct trainings for QISPs and/or to be a Compliance
Group Leader will include the submittal of a statement of qualifications for review, a
review fee, completion of an exam and training specific to this role. For more
information see the Construction General Permit trainer of record process:
http://www.casqa.org/TrainingandEducation/ConstructionGeneralPermitTrainingQSDQS
PToR/tabid/205/Default.aspx
After the initial Compliance Group registration, Compliance Group Leaders are required
to submit and maintain their list of Compliance Group Participants via SMARTS. There
are no additional administrative documents required. The previous permit required
group leaders to provide annual group evaluation reports and a letter of intent to
continue group monitoring. The State Water Board found these items to be resource
intensive and placed an unnecessary administrative burden on group leaders. The
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

67

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
Compliance Group requirements in this General Permit reduces the administrative
burden on both the Compliance Group Leaders and Water Board staff.
The State Water Board’s intent for the effluent data, BMP selection, cost, and
performance information, and other industry specific information provided in Compliance
Group reports is for evaluation of sector-specific permitting approaches and the use of
NALs in the next reissuance of this General Permit.
N. Annual Evaluation
Federal regulations require NPDES industrial storm water Dischargers to evaluate their
facility and SWPPP annually. Typically this requires an inspection of the facility to
ensure: (1) the SWPPP site map is up to date, (2) control of all potential pollutant
sources is included in the SWPPP, and (3) sampling data and visual observation
records are used to evaluate if the proper BMPs are being implemented. As
Dischargers are required to conduct monthly visual observation that partially overlap
with the actions required by the annual evaluation requirements, Dischargers may
perform the annual evaluation inspection concurrent with a monthly visual observation.
O. Annual Report
All Dischargers shall certify and submit via SMARTS an Annual Report no later than
July 15 following each reporting year. The reporting requirements for this General
Permit’s Annual Report are streamlined in comparison to the previous permit. The
Annual Report now consists of two primary parts: (1) a compliance checklist indicating
which permit requirements were completed and which were not (e.g., a Discharger who
completes the required sampling of four QSEs during the reporting year, versus a
Discharger who is only able to sample two QSEs during the reporting year), and (2) an
explanation for items on the compliance checklist that were determined incomplete by
the Discharger. Unlike the previous permit, the Annual Report does not require
Dischargers to provide the details of each visual observation (such as name of
observer, time of observation, observation summary, corrective actions, etc.) or provide
the details of the Annual Comprehensive Site Evaluation. Dischargers, however,
continue to be required to retain those records and have them available upon request.
The Annual Report is further simplified through the immediate electronic reporting via
SMARTS of sampling data and copies of the original laboratory reports instead of such
information being included in the Annual Report.
P. Conditional Exclusion - No Exposure Certification (NEC) Requirements
This General Permit’s conditional exclusion requirements are similar to the
requirements provided in 40 C.F.R. section 122.26(g)(3). Clarifications were added in
this General Permit, however, to the types of “storm resistant shelters” and the periods
when “temporary shelters” may be used in order to avert regulatory confusion.
California does not have operating coal power plants, which are a major contributor to
acid rain elsewhere in the United States. California does have nonpoint sources or
atmospheric deposition that may locally impact the pH of the rain water, however this is

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

68

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
not categorized as acid rain as referred to by the U.S. EPA for the NEC coverage
requirements. The No Exposure Guidance Document15 developed by the U.S. EPA
mentions acid rain as a potential source of contaminants to consider for NEC coverage.
The acid rain leachate language was not included in this General Permit’s Appendix 2 to
clarify that Dischargers may qualify for NEC coverage, even if the facility has metal
buildings or structures.
The Discharger shall certify and submit complete PRDs for NEC coverage via
SMARTS. Based upon the State Water Board’s experience with reissuing and
implementing the 2009 Construction General Permit, the transition for existing
Dischargers to register under this new General Permit is staff resource intensive. The
State Water Board staff is available to assist Dischargers requiring assistance with
enrolling under this General Permit, both for NOI coverage and NEC coverage. The
State Water Board has also experienced that more time is needed for its staff to assist
Dischargers registering for NEC coverage. To provide better customer service to all
Dischargers, three months have been added to the NEC coverage PRD submittal
schedule for new and existing Dischargers (Section II.B.4 of this General Permit,
extending the NEC coverage registration date to October 1, 2015.
Dischargers must annually inspect their facility to ensure continued compliance with
NEC requirements, and annually re-certify and submit an NEC via SMARTS. Based on
its regulatory experience, the State Water Board has determined that a five-year NEC
re-certification period is inadequate. A significant percentage of facilities may revise,
expand, or relocate their operations in any given year. Furthermore, a significant
percentage of facilities experience turnover of staff knowledgeable of the NEC
requirements and limitations. Accordingly, the State Water Board believes that annual
NEC evaluation and re-certification requirements are appropriate to continually assure
adequate program compliance.
Q. Special Requirements - Plastic Materials
Water Code section 13367 requires the Water Boards to implement measures that
control discharges of preproduction plastic from point and nonpoint sources. The State
Water Board intends to use this General Permit to regulate discharges of preproduction
plastics from areas of facilities that are subject to this General Permit. A Regional
Water Board may designate facilities, or areas of facilities, that are not otherwise
subject to this General Permit, pursuant to Section XIX.F. For example, a Regional
Water Board may designate Plastic Materials handling areas of a transportation facility
that are not associated with vehicle maintenance as requiring coverage under this
General Permit.
Preproduction plastics used by the plastic manufacturing industry are small in size and
have the potential to mobilize in storm water. Preproduction plastic washed into storm
water drains can move to waters of the United States where it contributes to the growing
problem of plastic debris in inland and coastal waters. Water Code section 13367

15

U.S. EPA. Guidance Manual for Conditional Exclusion from Storm Water Permitting Based On “No Exposure” of Industrial
Activities to Storm Water. Web. June 2000. < http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/noxguide.pdf>. [as of January 31, 2014].

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

69

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
outlines five mandatory BMPs that are required for all facilities that handle
preproduction plastic. These mandatory BMPs are included in this General Permit.
The State Water Board has received comments regarding the Water Code requirements
for Plastics Facilities to install a containment system for on-site storm drain locations
that meet 1mm capture and 1-year 1-hour storm flow requirement standards. As a
result, this General Permit includes the option under Water Code section 13367 that
allows a plastics facility to propose an alternative BMP or suite of BMPs that can meet
the same performance and flow requirements as a 1mm capture and 1-year 1-hour
storm flow containment system standards. These alternative BMPs are to be submitted
to the Regional Water Board for approval. This alternative is intended to allow the
facility to develop BMPs that focus on pollution prevention measures that can perform
as well as, or better than, the containment system otherwise required by the statute.
The State Water Board also includes two additional containment system alternatives in
this General Permit that are considered to be equivalent to, or better than, the 1mm
capture and 1-year 1-hour storm flow requirements:


An alternative allowing plastic facilities to implement a suite of eight BMPs
addressing the majority of potential sources of plastic discharges. This suite of
BMPs is based on industry and U.S. EPA recommendations and Water Board
experience with storm water inspections, violations, and enforcement cases
throughout California.



An alternative allowing a facility to operate in a manner such that all preproduction
plastic materials are used indoors and pose no potential threat for discharge off-site.
The facility is required to notify the Regional Water Board of the intent to seek this
exemption and of any changes to the facility or operations that may disqualify the
facility for the exemption. The exemption may be revoked by the Regional Water
Board at any time.

Plastics facilities may use preproduction plastic materials that are less than 1mm in
size, or produce materials, byproducts, or waste that is smaller than 1mm in size.
These small size materials will pass through the 1mm capture containment system
required by Water Code section 13367. Plastics facilities with sub-1mm materials must
design a containment system to capture the smallest size material onsite with a 1-year
1-hour storm flow requirement, or propose alternative BMPs for Regional Water Board
approval that meet the same requirements.
The remaining BMPs required by Water Code section 13367 are consistent with
recommendations for handling and clean-up of preproduction plastics in the American
Chemistry Council publication, Operation Clean Sweep and U.S. EPA’s publication
Plastic Pellets in the Aquatic Environment: Sources and Recommendations. The State
Water Board believes that the entire approach in this General Permit for plastic
materials is consistent with Water Code section 13367.
R. Regional Water Board Authorities
The Regional Water Boards retain discretionary authority over many issues that may
arise from industrial discharges within their respective regions. This General Permit
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

70

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
emphasizes the authority of the Regional Water Boards over specific requirements of
this General Permit that do not meet region-specific water quality protection regulatory
needs.
S. Special Conditions: Requirements for Dischargers Claiming the “No Discharge”
Option in the Notice of Non-Applicability
1. General
Entities that operate facilities generating storm water associated with industrial
activities that is not discharged to waters of the United States are not required to
obtain General Permit coverage. Entities that have contacted the Water Boards to
inquire what is necessary to avoid permit coverage have received inconsistent
guidance. This has resulted in regulatory inconsistency and uncertainty as to
whether they are in compliance if their industry operates without General Permit
coverage. Depending upon how each Regional Water Board handles “No
Discharge” claims, some facilities with advanced containment design may be
required to obtain General Permit coverage while other facilities with less advanced
containment design may be allowed to operate without General Permit coverage.
Some stakeholders have complained that this type of regulatory inconsistency puts
some facilities at an economically-competitive disadvantage given the costs
associated with permit compliance.
U.S. EPA regulations do not provide a design standard, definition, or guidance as to
what constitutes “No Discharge.” Unlike Conditional Exclusion requirements,
U.S. EPA regulations do not require an entity to submit technical justification or
certification that a facility does not discharge to waters of the United States (U.S.).
Therefore entities have previously been allowed to self-determine that their facility
does not discharge to water of the U.S. when using any containment design
standard. The State Water Board does not have available information showing that
most entities have adequately performed hydraulic calculations to determine the
frequency of discharge corresponding to their containment controls or have had
these hydraulic calculations reviewed or completed by a California licensed
professional engineer. Although U.S. EPA makes clear that an unpermitted
discharge to waters of the U.S. is a violation of the CWA, this leaves regulatory
agencies with the very difficult task of knowing when any given facility discharges in
order to carry-out enforcement actions.
In 1998, the Water Code was amended to require entities who are requested by the
Water Boards to obtain General Permit coverage, but that have a valid reason to not
obtain General Permit coverage, to submit a Notice of Non-Applicability (NONA).
(Wat. Code, § 13399.30, subd. (a)(2)). The NONA covers multiple reasons why an
entity is not required to be permitted including (1) facility closure, (2) not the legal
owner, (3) incorrect SIC code, (4) eligibility for the Conditional Exclusion (No
Exposure Certification), and (5) the facility not discharging to water of the U.S. (“No
Discharge”). The previous permit contained definitions, requirements, and guidance
that entities may reference to determine whether they are eligible to select any of the
first four NONA reasons for not obtaining General Permit coverage. However,
neither the previous permit nor the Water Code provide definitions, requirements,
Order 2014-0057-DWQ

71

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
and guidance for entities to determine whether they are eligible to indicate “No
Discharge” on the NONA as a reason for not obtaining General Permit coverage.
This General Permit addresses and resolves the issues discussed above by
establishing consistent, statewide eligibility requirements in Section XX.C for entities
submitting NONAs indicating “No Discharge.” When requested by the Water Boards
to obtain General Permit coverage, entities must meet these “No Discharge”
eligibility requirements or obtain General Permit coverage. The Water Boards retain
enforcement authority if a facility subsequently discharges.
2. “No Discharge” Eligibility Requirements
The entity must certify submit in SMARTS a NONA Technical Report signed (wet
signature and license number) by a California licensed professional engineer that
contains the analysis and details of the containment design supporting the “No
Discharge” eligibility determination. Because containment design will require
hydraulic calculations, soil permeability analysis, soil stability calculations,
appropriate safety factor consideration, and the application of other general
engineering principles, state law requires the technical report to be signed (wet
signature and license number) by a California licensed professional engineer.
The State Water Board has selected a containment design target that, as properly
applied will result in few, if any, discharges. The facility must either be:
a. Engineered and constructed to contain all storm water associated with industrial
activities from discharging to waters of the United States. (The determination of
what is a water of the United States can be complicated, and in certain
circumstances, a discharge to groundwater that has a direct hydrologic
connection to waters of the United States may constitute a discharge to a water
of the United States.) Dischargers must base their information upon maximum
historic precipitation event data (or series of events) from the nearest rain gauges
as provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
website, or other nearby precipitation data available from other government
agencies. At a minimum, Dischargers must ensure that the containment design
addresses maximum 1-hour, 24-hour, weekly, monthly, and annual precipitation
data for the duration of the exclusion.
Design storm events are generally specified as a one-time expected hydraulic
failure over a reoccurrence of years for a specified storm event. For example, if
a design storm standard is a 100 year 24-hour event, then a facility’s
containment system designed to contain the maximum volume of water would be
expected to fall in 24 hours once every 100 years. Design standards vary
dependent upon the regulatory program and the level of protection needed.
Since California has considerable variations in climate/topography/soil conditions
across the state, the “No Discharge” NONA eligibility requirements have been
created so that each facility’s containment design can incorporate unique site
specific circumstances to meet the requirement that discharges will not occur
based upon past historical precipitation data. Facilities that are not designed to
not meet the “No Discharge” eligibility requirements must obtain General Permit
coverage.

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

72

 Industrial General Permit Fact Sheet
b. Located in basins or other physical locations that are not hydrologically
connected to waters of the United States.
The State Water Board considered allowing Entities to review United States
Army Corp of Engineer maps to determine, without a California licensed
professional engineer, whether their facility location is within a basin and/or other
physical location that is not hydrologically connected to waters of the United
States. The State Water Board believes that this determination can be difficult in
some cases, or is likely to be performed incorrectly. In addition, there may be
areas of the state that are not hydrologically connected to waters of the United
States, but are not on United States Army Corps of Engineer maps. Therefore,
all “No Discharge” Technical Reports must be signed (wet signature and license
number) by a California licensed professional engineer.
3. Additional Considerations
The “No Discharge” determination does not cover storm water containment systems
that transfer industrial pollutants to groundwater. Entities must determine whether
designs that incorporate infiltration may discharge to and contaminate groundwater.
If there is a threat to groundwater, Entities must contact the Regional Water Boards
prior to construction of infiltration design elements.
Entities that have not eliminated all discharges that are subject to General Permit
coverage (NOI Coverage or NEC Coverage) are ineligible to submit NONAs
indicating “No Discharge.”

Order 2014-0057-DWQ

73