Lehigh Hanson Quarry/Cement Plant violation

(This doesn't look good, and we'll be following the issue. It's the text of a letter from the Regional Water Board to Lehigh Hanson quarry/cement plant operators.  -Brian)


Sent via certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested
March 26, 2010
Lehigh Southwest Cement Co.
c/o Scott Renfew, Environmental Manager
24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino , CA 95014

Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION and required corrective actions for failure to protect stormwater at industrial facility

Facility: Lehigh Southwest Cement Co. (formally Hanson Permanente Cement) Industrial facility, located at 24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, Santa Clara County
WDID No. 2 43I006267

Dear Mr. Renfew:

You are hereby given notice that the industrial facility indicated above (Facility) is in violation of stormwater protection requirements. On behalf of Water Board staff, a PG Environmental, LLC, inspector recently inspected the Facility, and noted numerous water quality violations. You are required to correct the problems noted in the attached Inspection Findings, Violations, and Corrective Actions Report and send us documentation of your corrective actions by the dates indicated in this Report.

The Facility is in violation of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities, Order No. 97-03-DWQ (Permit1) and the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan2).

Permit violations

The Permit requires industrial facility owners to implement controls that reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BAT/BCT) performance standard. Development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that complies with the requirements in Section A of the Permit and that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs)
that achieve BAT/BCT constitutes compliance with this requirement. Our inspector observed that the Facility does not meet this standard, and therefore, the Facility is in violation of the Permit.

Basin Plan Prohibition violations

Additionally, the Facility is in violation of the Basin Plan, which is the Regional Water Board’s master water quality control document. The Basin Plan applies to all discharges within the Regional Water Board’s jurisdiction, including discharges from this Facility. We observed during the February 10, 2010, inspection evidence of discharges that are in violation of, at a minimum, Basin Plan Prohibition 7:

Prohibition 7 prohibits rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.

Please refer to the attached inspection report for the details of the violations and required corrective actions.

Consequences for not coming into compliance

Failure to return to compliance with the Permit and failure to comply with the Basin Plan prohibitions are violations of CWC Section 13385(a)(2) and (a)(4), respectively, for which the Water Board may impose civil liability in the amount not to exceed $10,000 per day of each violation, plus $10 per gallon in excess of 1,000 gallons per discharge.

Additional notes

If you need guidance, the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) publishes a handbook for Industrial Stormwater Best Management Practices3. The CASQA handbook is one of many online resources that describe industry standard BMPs. Please note that Water Board can not specify means of compliance. It is your responsibility to select and correctly implement an appropriate suite of BMPs. Use of the CASQA handbook or other similar guidance documents may help you achieve compliance, but it does not guarantee compliance.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Christine Boschen at (510) 622-2346 or by email at cboschen@waterboards.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Dyan C. Whyte
Assistant Executive Officer
Encl.: February 10, 2010, Inspection Findings, Violations, and Corrective Actions

One victory and possibly more for the environment

1. San Jose City Council's Committee on Economic Development voted 4-0 to recommend the City Council pass a ban on plastic bags from retailers and groceries (with limited exceptions) and a ban on paper bags with less than 50% recycled content. The City Council will also consider a 10 to 25 cent fee on paper bags as well (media reports saying the Committee recommended the fee are wrong, the actual stance is neutral). Seven of the 11 council members have now publicly supported this position. CGF and Save the Bay were the only major environmental groups that spoke at the meeting. This is a good step for stream protection and would put San Jose at the forefront of this issue with a stronger position than even what San Francisco did. More info is at the Mercury News.

I'll just add that the plastic bag industry may be shooting itself in the foot - they've opposed fees on takeout bags, relying on voter resistance to anything that resembles a tax, but that has pushed the reform direction towards an outright ban instead. Maybe next time the bag people will be more reasonable.

2. Second piece of possibly good news is that one of the four applications to expand Gilroy outward has been dropped after they received extensive critiques from CGF and others on their environmental documents. This was Gavilan's application to expand development of its main campus in Gilroy, completely separate from the other controversy over a proposed new campus in Coyote Valley. I only call it "possibly" good news because Gavilan has asserted they are not legally required to get Gilroy's permission, so they might have a Plan B in mind, but we'll be ready to react if Plan B comes around.

-Brian

Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition (and CGF) event on November 17

CGF is a participating member of the Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, an umbrella group coordinating stream protection in our county. I'll be mentioning SCCCC activities from time to time.

A big event coming up next month is the Creeks and Watershed Conference, an all day conference on November 17th in San Jose to educate the public about watershed protection efforts. More information is available here - please come for any part of the event, or for the whole day!

-Brian

(I should note that children are welcome, but the presentations will be geared to an adult level.)

CGF Comments on the Water District Performance Audit

(We submitted comments on a performance audit for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. I'm the environmental representative on an advisory committee, discussed briefly here.

-Brian)
------

The following are my comments on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills regarding the Watershed Operations Audit Memorandum of the March 2007 Comprehensive Performance Audit Final Report prepared for the Water District.

(The following page references are to Appendix E of the Final Report.)

Page 2: fieldwork listed for the Watershed Operations Audit does not include interviews with outside stakeholders. I was interviewed by the auditors, primarily concerning watershed issues. My interview is listed elsewhere in the Audit, but I hope the omission here does not mean my interview was left out of consideration for the Watershed Memo. Some of my comments would have fallen into the category of “Opportunities for Improvement,” although I did not take notes when I was interviewed.

Page 4 and Page 18: Strength Finding No. 1, praising the Watershed Permit Management System, appears to conflict with Opportunity for Improvement Finding No. 6, stating the District “is not fully prepared for future permit-driven monitoring.” More explanation is needed as to why the current system will be inadequate, and if so, why the current system is not currently inadequate.

Page 6 and 7: Strength Finding No. 2, praising the “partner” relationship with the City of San Jose over Coyote Valley, is troubling. The District should be a neutral provider of information regarding environmental protection, water quality, water supply, and flood protection. If San Jose ultimately approves Coyote Valley development and the project goes forward, then a partner relationship could be appropriate, but right now this highly contentious project divides the people that the District works for – the voters of Santa Clara County. There are limits to the Baldrige business model when applied to governments, and this may be an example. At this point in time, the District should not be taking sides.

Page 8 and 9: as it appears that no one on the Clean Safe Creeks Independent Monitoring Committee was interviewed, I would like to know the basis the auditors have for concluding that the program is successful. I am not for my part stating it is successful or unsuccessful overall, and the parts I am familiar with appear to be successful, but am interested in what the basis is for this determination.

Page 11 and 12: the statement on p. 12, “the perception local agencies have of the District with respect to floodplain management probably does not match the services the District provides” is unclear as to what exactly is the problem. The worst-case scenario is that the District and the agencies both believe the other side has taken on a responsibility that it has not, and something is not being done that should be done. This needs to be clarified.

Page 15 and 16: The discussion of the Watershed Resources Protection Ordinance misses that this is primarily an environmental protection issue, and the possibility of damage to flood control structures is a secondary issue. It further misses the issue that the Environmental Advisory Committee made recommendations that were not incorporated into the final ordinance (as I understand it). The comparison between the recommendations and the final ordinance would have been a useful place for an outside auditor to determine whether performance could be improved. Issues such as whether the District gave up too much authority that it legally could have exercised to agencies that are unwilling to protect the environment could also have been discussed as part of a performance audit.

My suggestion is the District react to this report by clarifying its role as a neutral provider of information. The District should also clarify that it is allowed to take a policy position supporting or opposing major projects like Coyote Valley, and clarify when it is acting as a “partner” and when it is acting as an expert agency.

I further suggest that any monitoring program tracking overall mitigation required of the district, also track when the District is supposed to be consulted by others. Many land use agencies, for example, will issue conditions to permits requiring landowners to consult with the District before proceeding with certain actions. While compliance in these cases is not the District’s responsibility, it would be very useful to have a single place to go to try and track down when consultation is required.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt

Santa Clara Valley Water District and global warming

At the latest meeting of the Water District's Environmental Advisory Commission, the District's staff guided us through eleven long-term strategic challenges they anticipate. Number three was global warming. Three concerns in particular threaten their work: first, rising sea levels threaten the aging levee system in South San Francisco Bay. Much of San Jose is actually below sea level due to overpumping of ground water in past decades, so the threat is further enhanced.

Second, rising sea levels mean saltwater intrusion into water tables in the Bay-Delta region, reducing the amount of local groundwater available. And third, rising temperatures mean more precipitation in the Sierras will fall as rain instead of snow, depriving us of some of our snow-pack water reservoirs. These are only some of the impacts they could have mentioned.

All the more reason to fight climate-destroying sprawl.

Keeping drugs out of the water

The Mercury News reports about a successful program in San Mateo County encouraging people to turn in their old medicines for proper disposal, instead of pouring them down the toilet. The powerful drugs, even in minute quantities, are harming the fish and amphibians in constant contact with medicated water.

Other jurisdictions are looking to copy San Mateo County. Let's hope it spreads.

-Brian