We collected all of the questions asked during our recent Q&A session and sent them to Ecology for written answers. Ecology got back to us with the following answers:

Sampling Questions:

1. Will Ecology update/ provide any guidance on the new sampling requirements? 

A: Ecology is updating and preparing to republish a guidance document on sampling with the new sampling requirements.  

2. Any guidance on where/ how to take a sample for a discharge to ground, especially in instances when using an infiltration BMP where you want to benefit from the treatment of that BMP.

A: Guidance for where and how to sample for a discharge to ground will be included in the ISGP Stormwater Sampling Manual. 

3. Do Permittees need to sample for PFAS in Quarter 1 of 2025, or do they have until the SWPPP update deadlines to incorporate that sampling?

     A: PFAS sampling needs to take place in quarter 1.

4. Where can I find a lab to take new sample parameters for testing?

A: Check out Ecology’s lab search page .

5. Do case narratives regarding sample handling and storage need to be included in lab reports in quarter 1.

A: Yes, you should have a case narrative for your quarter 1 sampling. This case narrative does not need to be included with the DMRs but should be available with other lab documentation on-site.

6. Is there a specific panel for PFAS that I need to sample for?

A: Yes the 6 parameters listed in the permit,  PFOS, PFOAS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, PFBS.

7. Are all sampling requirements whether new/old found on our SAW account/DMR portals current?

A: These should be current, reach out to your local permit administrator contact if you believe there is an error.

8. Do the case narratives regarding sample handling and storage need to be included in lab reports in Q1?

A: The permit states “The Permittee shall retain laboratory reports on-site for Ecology review and shall ensure that all laboratory reports providing data for all parameters include the following information: (goes on to list what those are, such as case narrative).“ Case narratives don’t need to be included with the DMRs but should be available with other lab documentation on-site. 

9. Do facilities that have to sample discharge to ground due to PFAS sampling requirements sample all parameters or just PFAS at those locations? 

A: Only PFAS

10. Can you clarify the resolution/ standards of the pH probe for people switching from pH paper.

A: The resolution for the pH probe to be tested to will be +/- 0.1. This is a typo that we will fix in the forthcoming errata for Table 2. 

11. Please clarify, are all sampling requirements whether new/old found on our SAW account DMR portals current.  

A: Yes, they are current in the new version and old version with the right DMR requirements. 

12. Are there labs that test for the 6 PFAS compounds in Washington or do we have to ship them out to another state?  Does Ecology have a list of these labs somewhere online?  

A: There is a list at this website: 

https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/laboratorysearch/Default.aspx.  

If you click on “search by Method” and then type  “1633” into the box, you can see which labs analyze PFAS.  

13. To clarify Scrap yards are supposed to be testing for PFAS right now?  I already performed our quarterly test; am I going to be dinged for not doing it the same day?  

A: Auto recyclers and scrap recycling don’t fall under the category for PFAS sampling. They don’t need to sample for PFAS.

Facilities that are required to sample PFAS (Waste Managment and Air Transportation categories NAICS Codes), are not required to collect PFAS samples on any particular day, any discharge to groundwater during the reporting period is acceptable.

14. Would a ms4 transfer station discharging into a bioinfiltration treatment system be considered a discharge to ground that needs to be sampled? If so, Will there be guidance on how to sample that discharge after it has been treated? 

A: Yes, if that biofiltration system infiltrates the stormwater from the transfer station into the ground (onsite infiltration); the ISGP requires sampling for PFAS compounds. 

15. Permit states “sample PFAS in discharges to the ground”. I interpret that to mean you sample the sheet flow prior to the drywell, bioretention facility, infiltration gallery, infiltration pond, etc. If that is the case, I am not getting the benefit of the BMP pollutant removal capability, especially if I included some type of bioretention treatment mix and plants at the surface of my infiltration asset. Therefore, if I want to sample post my BMP, I much dig into my BMP to install a collection sump/pipe/well to retrieve the water going through the ground. Have I now just created a UIC that needs to be Federally registered? What distinguishes infiltration from injection?

A: You may sample sheet flow, flow into a storm drain inlet or catch basin, or flow directly into the treatment facility before it is infiltrated. Ecology doesn’t anticipate that a subsurface sampling port under a bioretention facility would meet the definition of a UIC well.  Please see Ecology’s website for more information on what classifies as a UIC well a. Underground injection control program – Washington State Department of Ecology.

16. If a site 100% infiltrates under a Conditional No Exposure (CNE), is that now in question? 

A: CNEs are only required for facilities that discharge to surface waters of the state. These facilities do not require coverage under the ISGP because they meet the CNE exemption criteria, which has nothing to do with infiltration to a dry well or other infiltration BMP. Facilities that discharge soley to groundwater do not require coverage under the ISGP unless deemed to be a “Significant Contribute or Pollutants” on a case-by-case basis.  

Staff and Vendor Training Questions:

1. Please provide clarity on what constitutes a vendor that “have the ability to impact stormwater quality in areas of the industrial activity” such as FedEx or UPS deliveries, vending machine supplies, Cintas-type companies, etc

A: FedEx, UPS, and mail delivery services are couriers, not contractors/vendors. The expression “have the ability to impact stormwater quality” requires the permittee to apply judgment about the nature of the work that the contractor/vendor will be providing to the operator.
Factors to consider include, Is the work inside or outside? If outside work, could their materials or activities allow pollutants to contaminate stormwater runoff?  

Example: a contractor performing outdoor concrete cutting, or a lawncare/landscaping contractor – these are examples where a vendor/contractor has the “ability to impact stormwater quality”, so training them is required.  

2. If a “trained” staff member is supervising the activity, what are the expectations from Ecology inspectors to prove that has occurred?

A: The trained person’s signature in the SWPPP’s training log is a legally binding agreement stating they took the training, understand it, and are responsible for the implementation of the SWPPP on site. Ecology reviews SWPPPs and training logs during inspections. While the permit requires a trained staff member to supervise an untrained vendor or contractor, the permit doesn’t require specific documentation of the trained staff member overseeing the work of an untrained vendor or contractor. 

3. What sort of training is appropriate to satisfy the training requirement for vendors/contractors?

A: Whatever the site is currently doing for SWPPP training. Just make sure the SWPPP template is up to date with current site activities and follows the requirements of the permit. Ecology doesn’t have specific advice for how to train or what’s appropriate. Permittees know their sites and activities best. Permittees can choose how much to train the vendors/contractors on the SWPPP as long as it falls under the 3 requirements in SWPPP training noted in S3.B.5. i-iii when developing training.

Permittees can tailor the training to focus on the activities conducted and areas where the vendor or contractor will work. We encourage Washington Stormwater Center and other guidance providers to develop training modules for ISGP facilities to use.  

For brand new permittees, they can train on the SWPPP requirements in the permit itself to ensure people know what is required or use other training opportunities within Washington state. 

4. Can you train an individual from the contractor/vendor company to supervise the activity?

A: No, the permit says it needs to be an employee of the facility.

5. Is it up to the company’s discretion of ‘activities that will ‘impact stormwater’?

A: Permittees may use their judgment on what activities may impact stormwater. This language is also described throughout the permit of impacts to stormwater quality.

6. When you supervise a vendor activity, do you need to log that in the staff training log

A: Only log individuals who need/receive training in the training.   Supervised activities don’t need logging in the training log. Only trainings. 

7. Does the timeline to start training vendors start in Q1, or after the SWPPP Update deadline (July 1)

A: As long as they are trained within those 30- or 90-day deadlines. If they believe their SWPPP updates will be done within that 30- or 90-day training deadline, they can wait until the SWPPP is updated and train them under the new SWPPP as long as it falls under those training deadlines for part-time and full-time. Example:  A contractor comes on site who is performing work full time. They have 90 days to be trained. The SWPPP updates should occur within 30 days. The contractor’s training would occur under the new SWPPP since it falls within deadlines. The permit gives 30 days or 90 days depending on full–time or part–time status. 

8. We have a training log in our SWPPP and now have added a vendor/ contractor SWPPP training log to our SWPPP. when we train a new employee or vendor/contractor on our SWPPP, can we write all of the info down on the training log page, or do we have to revise our SWPPP eachtime to include the new trained people in our digital copy?

A: You can write it down in your training log.

9. When training a contractor/vendor is the permittee expected to train the vendor’s entire company that has different driver’s/operators that participate at the facility or each individual of the vendor’s company that comes onsite and what is the time restraint on when that is to happen? Upon arrival? Within 30 days? 90 days? 

A: If a permittee chooses not to train the whole contractor/vendor crew, then they may choose to have their activity supervised at all times by a site employee who has received training. Training day requirements are listed in the permit. 30 days for part–time and seasonal, 90 days for full–time.  

10. What does the training for folks supervising the activity at all times, include? Does it need to be specific to the vendor activity they are supervising or is their normal training acceptable?

A: Their normal training is acceptable. The permit only has general requirements for training, giving permittees flexibility in how they fulfill the requirements. 

11. Do the individuals who are supervising the activity at all times need to be identified as part of the pollution prevention team? 

A:Yes, these individuals (or titles of positions) should be listed in the SWPPP as part of the Pollution Prevention Team.  

 The ISGP language is: 

3. The SWPPP shall identify specific individuals by name or by title within the organization (pollution prevention team) whose responsibilities include: SWPPP development, implementation, maintenance, and modification.

12. The content of the training includes knowing where the SWPPP is, BMP function and maintenance, and spill response procedures for the facility. Due to security and safety issues, no vendor or contractor will have access to the SWPPP, should be responding to spills on certain properties, or investigating BMPs and their performance. Is the intent of this requirement to bring stormwater awareness and potential operational impacts to the onsite system (much like an MS4 PO&E program), or integrate the contractors as part of the in-house stormwater team? There are significant limitations to the later. The later would be more like saying landscapers, concrete suppliers, and materials haulers should be CESCL certified to operate on a CSGP site. Please provide clarity on customers or public that bring in materials – are they included (ex composting facility, metals recycler, etc.). 

A: Permittees have the discretion on what topics to train vendors/contractors on and what to exclude from the list as long as they meet the 3 minimum requirements mentioned in the question above. No, it isn’t the intent of that requirement to bring stormwater awareness to onsite system etc. It is an operational source control BMP (Technology Based or AKART based) to train personnel who have the potential to impact stormwater, so they can prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. Customers and public are not contractors/vendors or employees. 

13. Would truck drivers in and out of our site require training? 

A: Truck drivers in and out of an ISGP facility may perform duties that have the potential to impact stormwater quality (for example, loading/unloading materials, fueling or other vehicle maintenance), and be required to be trained if they are an employee, vendor or contractor. Here is the relevant permit language: 

The SWPPP shall include BMPs to provide SWPPP training for all employees and contractors/vendors who perform duties that have the potential to impact stormwater quality in areas of industrial activities subject to this permit. Contractors/vendors may be excluded if the permittee has an employee who has been trained on the SWPPP supervising the activity at all times 

Many truck drivers in and out of ISGP facilities may not meet the criteria for training, if they are not an employee, vendor or contractor. For example, FedEx drivers and other couriers do not meet these criteria.  

14. Would landscapers require training? This question stems from the concern of vendors who provide weekly services often off hours without consistent schedules. i.e. difficult to know that the landscaping crew hired a new crew member, and hard to predict when they are on site.  

A: Landscapers such as those mowing on a weekly basis would need training (unless supervised). Even if they are a rotating crew of different individuals conducting activities, upon entry to the facility, the permittee must provide sufficient written or verbal direction about how to prevent pollution related to their contracted activities.  

15. Would a vendor/ contractor performing chemical or fuel deliveries need training?

A: Yes, they will need training. Unless supervised by a site employee.  

Discharge to Ground Questions:

1. Can you clarify the differences for sampling requirements for a “functionally equivalent” discharge to surface water, and the discharge to ground sampling requirement for PFAS Facilities?  

A: PFAS sampling is required for discharges to ground regardless of if functional equivalent or not (for required facilities). This can be done via a shallow groundwater well or a piezometer. A functional equivalent discharge to surface water is when sampling of assigned benchmarks is required. 

2. I’m assuming a discharge to ground in a critical aquifer recharge area would also require sampling.  

A: If they’re subject to PFAS reporting or a functional equivalent to surface waters, then yes.

3. What about the groundwater rule and discharge to protect source protection areas? 

A: The ISGP authorizes stormwater discharges to groundwater, and the permit prohibits discharges that may cause or contribute to violations of the groundwater quality standards. 

4. My understanding is that Ecology needs to identify functional equivalent discharges. It’s not up to the permittee to decide and automatically sample. 

A: The permit language is clear that it is an Ecology determination that would be relayed to the permittee:
 

S4B2b. The Permittee is not required to sample on-site discharges to ground (e.g., infiltration) or sanitary sewer discharges, unless 1) the facility is required to sample PFAS in discharges to groundwater per Special Condition S5B), 2) specifically required by Ecology (Condition G12), or 3) a discharge point to groundwater is deemed by Ecology to constitute a functional equivalent to a point source discharge to surface waters. 

5. (PFAS facility)  If your stormwater is directed to a bioswale and frequently does not have a surface water discharge, do you need to sample for PFAS if no surface discharge occurs? and if yes, where would you collect the sample? The furthest distance through swale possible? Or somewhere else?  

A: Yes, you need to sample even if/when the bioswale doesn’t eventually flow to surface waters. They can sample before the bioswale on site, or at the point the bioswale would reach discharge to a surface water, as long as it’s representative of the quality of water discharged into the groundwater, via the infiltration BMP.

6. S1.E.2 – As written, any existing UIC’s that don’t meet Ecology’s Site Suitability Criteria currently would need to be brought up to Ecology’s standards or abandoned by the SWPPP implementation date of 05/15/2025. 

A: As long as the structure was built consistent with the SWMMWW at the time of design/construction – it only needs to be retrofitted and brought up to 2024 standards if the second sentence below occurs: 

 S1E3. Facilities discharging to ground (e.g., infiltration, Class V UIC wells, etc.) must have all treatment/infiltration BMPs designed, installed and maintained in accordance with Special Condition S3.A.2. New and existing permittees who have changed the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the facility that significantly changes the nature of pollutants discharged in stormwater from the facility, or significantly increases the quantity of pollutants discharged must ensure all requirements in Ecology’s SWMMWW section V-5.6 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) or SWMMEW Chapter 6-6.5.6 SSC are met per Condition G12, Additional Sampling. 

7. S1.E.3 – Similarly, it seems that any infiltration facility would need to be brought up to 2024 SWMMWW (S3.A.2.) standards by the SWPPP implementation date of 05/15/2025. Is that Ecology’s intent? There may be many infiltration systems designed and constructed historically that don’t meet current standards and significant work may be required to modify them. Would a permittee in such a situation request a permit modification if they need more time to comply? 

A: If the UIC well isn’t registered with Ecology, they need to register it. We don’t mean to have historical wells meet the current 2024 SWMMs; SWMMs that were applicable as long as the structure was built consistent with the SWMMWW at the time of design/construction – it only needs to be retrofitted and brought up to 2024 standards if the second sentence below occurs:

Facilities discharging to ground (e.g., infiltration, Class V UIC wells, etc.) must have all treatment/infiltration BMPs designed, installed and maintained in accordance with Special Condition S3.A.2. New and existing permittees who have changed the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the facility that significantly changes the nature of pollutants discharged in stormwater from the facility, or significantly increases the quantity of pollutants discharged must ensure all requirements in Ecology’s SWMMWW section V-5.6 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) or SWMMEW Chapter 6-6.5.6 SSC are met per Condition G12, Additional Sampling.

  8. Could you please clarify of intent for the last sentence in S1.E.3 and maybe an example scenario? The requirement is confusing.

A: Here is the last sentence in S1.E.3:
New and existing permittees who have changed the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the facility that significantly changes the nature of pollutants discharged in stormwater from the facility, or significantly increases the quantity of pollutants discharged must ensure all requirements in Ecology’s SWMMWW section V-5.6 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) or SWMMEW Chapter 6-6.5.6 SSC are met per Condition G12, Additional Sampling.

These are the criteria for a modification of permit coverage, and have been in place for the last few permit cycles; common examples include:  

• A facility changes operations/NAICS codes and the new operations/NAICS code significantly changes the nature of pollutants in the discharge.   

• A facility increases the size of their facility from 3 acres to 10 acres; significantly increasing the volume of pollutants being discharged into the infiltration BMP.  

9. Are stormwater discharges from a site that go through a catch basin, oil-water separator, and then into an engineered infiltration trench (not a UIC) regarded as discharge to ground and subject to the ISGP permit? 

A: Yes, Discharge to ground sampling is required if your site NAICS has PFAS involved and/or is found to be a functional equivalent discharge to surface waters.  

10. If site stormwater is discharged to offsite to a wetland, is that discharge subject to the ISGP permit? 

A: Yes, a wetland is a water of the US/ water of the state and the site needs a permit. 

Corrective Action Tally Questions:

1. Can you clarify if I have a zinc exceedance at outfall 1,2,3 all in the same quarter, am I in a corrective action 3, or do they need to occur during different quarters? 

A: This would trigger a Level 1, i.e., facility exceeded benchmark during Q1 = Level 1. 

2. If I am able to address a problem at outfall 1 through a Corrective Action level 1, have an unrelated exceedance at outfall 2 it seems like I have already adaptively managed outfall 1 and shouldn’t need structural source controls. Can you clarify? 

A: Permit language is clear, if these two exceedances (at outfall 1 and outfall 2) were in two different quarters, it requires a Level 2 corrective action; if the problem was solved with the Level 1, the permittee may want to request a waiver from the Level 2 corrective action, based on operational source control.

Consistent Attainment Questions:

1. Does consistent attainment roll over from the 2020 permit or does the sampling start over?  For example, if I am 6 quarters without consistent attainment does that quarter tally start over or am I back to 0 when the 2025 permit goes into effect?

A:  It rolls over. 

2. If I was in consistent attainment at the end of the 2020 permit, am I still in consistent attainment, or do I need to resume normal sampling? 

A: Consistent attainment will roll over.

3. Do the above change if my facility now has new sampling requirements (6ppd/pfas)? 

A: PFAS/ 6PPD would need quarterly sampling, other parameters that were previously shown as consistent attainment can continue to be sampled annually until they reach 12 consecutive quarters per the ISGP.  

4. Can you clarify when facilities who are under consistent attainment need to take their annual sample? Is this the first fall storm event? (Which may happen after q4 has ended at some facilities that have). 

A: Facilities with consistent attainment must comply with the conditions below, neither of which require this annual sample to be collected as a “First Fall Storm Event”, or during any particular quarter.  

Permittees with consistent attainment must collect an annual sample. A facility may average the annual sample with any other samples taken over the course of the quarter the annual sample was taken.  

A Permittee whose annual sample exceeds the benchmark during consistent attainment is no longer allowed to claim consistent attainment. The Permittee must begin sampling in accordance with S4.B. 

5. If we are trying to achieve or have achieved consistent attainment, how do we notify the WA Department of Ecology?  Do you just stop submitting DMR’s except for Q3 or Q4 after first fall storm event sampling or is there a form you submit so everyone is on the same page about your consistent attainment achievement? 

A: Permittees notify Ecology on the DMR submittal page, each quarter, indicating that a sample is not required due to Consistent Attainment.  

6. The definition of First Fall Storm Event (pg 81) reads “the first-time on or after September 1st of each year…” If first flush is defined by calendar year, how can the “first flush” event of 2024 occurs in January of 2025? If I sample the 2024 First Fall Storm Event in Jan of 2025, does it also count as my Q1 sample of 2025? If I exceed a benchmark in that same sample event, can I average it down in Q1 of 2025. On my Annual Report do I count the CA Level 1 or whatever it turns out to be in my 2024 Annual Report or my 2025? If I reached a Level 3 as a result of a sample I took in 2025, does that push me out to 2026 to complete the Level 3 CA or do I have to complete it in 2025? 

A: The first fall storm event occurs after September 1st of each year. It isn’t defined to end of calendar year or end at a certain time. For example, a site out in Eastern Washington may not see their first fall storm event until January 2025. Yes, you can average it down in that same sample event in Q1 of 2025. If the first fall storm event is in Q1 of 2025 then it is reported as Q1 of 2025 not 2024.  if there is no discharge after September 1, including no 4th quarter sample; they report “no discharge” for the Q4 DMR

 

7. I’m following up after today’s webinar to put in a request for more clarification on the consistent attainment annual sample if possible. I heard from Shannon McClellan in the session and see on WSC’s website that it should be during the first fall storm event; however, the permit does not mention the “first flush” or “first fall storm” at all in this context. 

I also wanted to note that if a facility’s first storm of the year occurred near the end of Q3, there would be no opportunity to resample and reduce the quarterly average results, something that was feasible when the timeline for the requirement was limited to Q4. 

A: Comment noted, I agree that quarterly averaging is constrained by the 2020 and 2025 ISGPs use of Sept 1st. The annual sample for permittees with Consistent Attainment need not be collected as the First Fall Flush (after Sept 1); it can be taken at any time during the calendar year.  

Other Permit Questions:

1.Was the shortened timeline for corrective action 2 intentional or is that a typo resulting from the extension of corrective action 3? Previously the CA2 was due August 31 (response to comment also mentions Aug 31st) and now it is due June 30 (which is the date the CA3 engineering report was extended to.)  

A: In the draft ISGP, Ecology proposed a change, reducing the deadline from August 31 to June 30. Based on public comments, Ecology agreed to change the deadline back to August 31. However, Ecology inadvertently retained the June 30 in the final permit, but this will be changed/corrected to August 31st in the final permit via Errata.  

2. Does dumpster inspection need to be completed on the normal site inspection form? Does it need its own form? Will there be a template? 

A: Dumpster inspections are part of the normal site inspections. It doesn’t need its own form, nor template. 

3. Can you clarify when a municipal permittee operating under the ms4 permit would need an ISGP? 

A: They will need the permit if they conduct industrial activities that fall under Table 1. Common examples include County Waste Management facilities; municipally owned airports; or a public port conducting material handling or vehicle maintenance at a Cargo Handling Facility.  

4. Do stormwater discharges from a POTW fall under the ISGP?

A: Most POTWs drain their industrial stormwater into the treatment plant and are authorized to discharge under the authorization of the Individual Permit for the POTW, rather than need a separate ISGP coverage. However, the following POTWs need the ISGP (NAICS 22132x), if they have a stormwater discharge to surface waters of the state:   1) Treatment works treating domestic sewage, or any other sewage sludge, or wastewater treatment device or system, used in the storage, recycling, and reclamation of municipal or domestic sewage (including land dedicated to the disposal of sewage sludge that are located within the confines of the facility) with the design flow capacity of 1 million gallons per day (MGD) or more, or 2) required to have a pretreatment program under 40 CFR §403. 1) POTWs with 1MGD or more, and 3) any size POTW that is required to have a pretreatment program under the CFR.  

5. If a site discharges stormwater offsite to a wetland, are those discharges subject to the permit? 

A: Yes, any industrial stormwater discharge to a surface water of the state (including a wetland) triggers the ISGP. Once covered by the ISGP, the permit authorizes discharge to both surface waters and groundwater.

6. CNE approvals – is there a situation where a facility that has not been approved within the 90–day window would need to complete/submit NOI and NOI-required materials?

A:   Yes, if Ecology denies the CNE request (before or after 90 days), they will be given a deadline to apply for the ISGP by submitting an NOI.  

7. Are there any circumstances that an ISGP permittee does not need to prepare a SWPPP in accordance with the stormwater Management Manual? Specifically, related to waste management plans

A: The SWPPP must be consistent with S3 of the ISGP. Consider that S3 A.4 states:  

4. Other Pollution Control Plans
   The Permittee may incorporate by reference applicable portions of plans prepared for other purposes at their facility. Plans or portions of plans incorporated by reference into a SWPPP become enforceable requirements of this permit and must be available along with the SWPPP, as required in S9.F. A Pollution Prevention Plan prepared under the Hazardous Waste Reduction Act, Chapter 70.95C RCW, is an example of such a plan. 

8. Lab Accreditation List- Does Ecology plan to update the Lab Accreditation query list? Many labs are just now building resources to handle PFAS and 6PPDQ? Many labs identified are no longer in business.

A: Yes, this list gets updated regularly.  

9. Will Ecology make announcements to the permittees if their permit requires additional effluent limits related to recent WAC 173-201a or other TMDL established standards or will the first time they learn of it be in submitting the DMR? 

A: Yes, Ecology is sending an ISGP Monitoring Summary document to each ISGP permittee with that information. 

10. Does a Sample Point Update Form (S4.B.2.e) require a Modification of Permit Coverage and Public Notification? 

A: No, typically not. Two exceptions come to mind:  
1) if the sample point update is directly associated with a waiver from sampling per Condition S4.A.2.f., and  
2) if the sample point update form adds a new outfall, or receiving waterbody to the permit coverage, it would trigger a modification/public notice.

11. Required spill kit- For clarity, a “boom” is a very large sorbent product, primarily used for open water applications and will not fit in a bucket. Are “socks” an equivalent if there are over 10 linear feet of them? Is there an explanation behind why there need to be 2 ,5-gallon buckets – disposal of saturated materials? Will heavy mill plastic bags suffice? Does the boom that does 12 gallons of absorption (which most non-water booms don’t absorb but rather adsorb which may leach petroleum back to disposal) of the boom count towards the total of 15–gallon requirement? If a saturated 10’ boom will not go into one, why would you have 2? 

A: S3.B.4.b allows permittees to omit the specific BMP requirements in S3, if it is justified, and you are free to tailor the contents your Spill Kits to site specific activities, materials and site conditions: 

1. b) The Permittee shall include each of the following mandatory BMPs in the SWPPP and implement the BMPs. The Permittee may omit individual BMPs if site conditions render the BMP unnecessary or infeasible and the Permittee provides alternative and demonstrably equivalent BMPs. The Permittee must justify each BMP omission in the SWPPP.

12. Does Ecology plan to make modifications to the ISGP Annual Report and Modification of Permit forms?

A: Yes. These are in process. 

13. Definitions-Significant Process Change – Bullet 3 uses SIC and identification system to reference. This also brings into consideration “secondary NAICS codes”. If a company’s primary NAICS code was not listed on Table 1, but they became successful and start to operate their own fleet trucks, do they trigger the need for an ISGP as a result of the Transportation (48xxxx) activity? Who tells them that? 

A: That is a typo. That “SIC” should read “NAICS.” The permit does not distinguish between primary and secondary NAICS or SIC codes; it has no bearing on the trigger for permit coverage.  

14. In Table 3, Mercury is identified as Mercury, Total using methodology 1631E. That methodology is considered by most labs as “Clean Mercury” which requires a field bottle blank and intense acids. Is it Ecology’s intent to get a 200.8 measurement under “clean principles” of 1669 or does Ecology want the 1631E practices for the samples – very different. 

A: You must use EPA method 1631 E for sampling and analysis. Mercury by EPA 200.8 is not an approved method. 2025 ISGP page 44, S6.C.1.    

15. Historically, 303(d) listing impacts were bounded by any new EPA approved listings that occurred during the previous permit (e.g. 2020) and a two–year compliance schedule for “new” 303(d) listings was provided for Permittees to monitor, evaluate and install best management practices to comply with new numeric effluent limits.  It appears that there is a typo in the permit as to the date of which 303(d) list applies: “Permittees discharging to a 303(d) listed waterbody (Category 5) that was not 303(d) listed at the time of 2025 (2025 appears to be a typo and should be 2020) permit coverage shall comply with the applicable sampling requirements and numeric effluent limits in Table 6 as soon as possible, but no later than Jan 1, 2027.”   
 It may help to look at the 2020 ISGP for this item: Permittees discharging to a 303(d) listed waterbody … that was not 303(d) listed at the time of the 2015 permit.  

A: That typo should read 2020 and will be fixed in the next errata.  

---