Proposed changes discussed during the presentation

Ecology highlighted several areas where settlement-related changes are expected to appear in the proposed draft permit.

Clarifications to SWPPP language

Shannon described proposed changes to Special Condition S3 related to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, or SWPPPs. These include wording changes such as “shall” to “will” and “intended” to “necessary.” The proposed language also removes a reference stating that the SWPPP does not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.

Employee training clarification

The presentation also covered a proposed clarification to employee training requirements. Ecology indicated that the language will be revised to more clearly include contractors and vendors of the permittee who perform permit-related duties. This change is intended to make the training expectations clearer for facilities that rely on contractors, vendors, or other third parties for stormwater-related work, and reduce some of the training burden at certain types of facilities.

Sampling waiver language for unsafe conditions

Ecology also discussed changes to the sample point waiver process. The proposed language would clarify that waiver requests may apply when sampling is unsafe or not feasible. Ecology emphasized that it has not required permittees to sample in unsafe conditions, but the updated language is intended to make that expectation clearer in the permit.

Ecology also noted that it is working on reporting codes for Discharge Monitoring Reports, or DMRs, related to unsafe sampling conditions.

Corrective action changes for Level 2 and Level 3 requirements

One of the more significant proposed changes involves how Level 2 and Level 3 corrective actions are triggered and applied.

For Level 2 corrective actions, Ecology described proposed language stating that benchmark exceedances are tallied by drainage area and single parameter. The proposed language would require Level 2 corrective action when a permittee exceeds an applicable benchmark in Tables 2, 3, or 7 in a single drainage area for any two quarters during a calendar year.

The proposed language also clarifies that Level 2 corrective actions do not need to be completed in other drainage areas that did not exceed the benchmark during that calendar year.

Similarly, for Level 3 corrective actions, Ecology described proposed language focused on exceedances for a single parameter in a single drainage area. The proposed language would state that Level 3 corrective actions are tied to drainage areas associated with discharge points that exceeded the benchmark three times during the calendar year.

For many permittees this is a major change from how these benchmarks were approached in the previous permit, as benchmarks were then considered facility wide making level 2 and level 3 corrective actions much easier to trigger.

Level 3 timeline extension for some facilities

Ecology also discussed proposed language that would extend the deadline for certain Level 3 corrective action engineering reports.

Under the proposed language, some facilities would have up to 18 months after the last day of the calendar year to submit the required engineering report. This would apply to facilities that are:

• Owned or operated by a small business;
• Owned or operated by a publicly owned entity; or
• Larger than five acres.

Changes to Special Condition S10

Ecology also stated that sections of Special Condition S10 are expected to be removed or substantially revised, particularly language related to “cause or contribute” to violations of surface water quality or groundwater quality standards.

Ecology noted that it has not historically relied heavily on S10 for enforcement and does not believe the proposed removal of this language will weaken the permit. According to Ecology, other portions of the ISGP remain central to permit implementation and enforcement.

Benchmarks, dilution factors, and updated science

Ecology also noted that it is revisiting benchmark calculations and dilution factors for certain water bodies. This work will include updated data and science, including information from the recently approved 2022 Water Quality Assessment.

The goal, according to Ecology, is to ensure that benchmarks and dilution factors are scientifically sound, technically accurate, and protective of water quality.

Read about the 2022 WQ assessment here

Duty to reapply will be especially important

Because the ISGP is being reissued earlier than usual, Shannon emphasized the importance of permittees paying close attention to future duty to reapply communications.

Ecology has not yet finalized the exact duty to reapply date, but indicated it may fall in late 2027 or early 2028. Ecology plans to communicate with permittees earlier than usual and send multiple reminders.

Permittees were strongly encouraged to make sure their contact information is current in PARIS, including correct names, email addresses, and mailing addresses. This is especially important for facilities that have experienced staff turnover, retirements, or changes in permit responsibility.

What permittees should do now

Although the formal draft permit process has not yet begun, permittees can take several practical steps now:

1. Review and update PARIS contact information so Ecology’s future communications reach the right people.
2. Track Ecology’s ISGP webpage for settlement agreement documents and future reissuance updates.
3. Pay attention to future duty-to-reapply communications to avoid any lapse in permit coverage.
4. Join an early input workgroup to give your recommendations on changes to the ISGP.

Click Here to Learn More

.