Just When You Thought Your Stormwater was Safe to Go Back in the Water

By John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

The specter of additional environmental regulations coming at the maritime industry is the reality in California. What was once a steady drip, drip, drip of new environmental requirements in California has now become a firehose gusher of proposed rulemaking that makes one wonder, “what could be next”.

Greenhouse gases and toxic air emissions from the goods movement sector has long been a target for state and local regulators. Adding to the regulatory mix is a proposal from the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) to amend their existing Industrial General Stormwater Permit (IGP), placing new treatment requirements for stormwater runoff, as well as increased legal exposure to marine facilities, leaving terminal operators wondering what sins they committed in a previous life.

The proposal is a set of amendments to the existing IGP, a five year stormwater permit that expires on June 30, 2020. Under the Clean Water Act - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), virtually all industrial facilities that discharge stormwater runoff into common waterbodies are required to operate under the parameters of an IGP. The permit requires the development of a plan, periodic sampling and analysis of discharge and reporting of discharge pollutant constituents to the state. Stormwater discharges that exceed established limits must be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board. That mitigation can vary from best practices to filtration, to even capture and extensive treatment of all runoff; often at great expense. The benefit to the facility, if one can call it that, is recognition that they are in compliance with their permit and operating legally in the state.

While each industry has its own set of pollutants that they generate and must mitigate, marine terminals are faced with the dilemma of having to mitigate a set of pollutants that are generated by third party business not under their control. The tens of thousands of trucks that pass through marine terminals on a daily basis generate residual copper from brake pads and zinc from tires. These metals are difficult to mitigate, and because the sources are so ubiquitous, many water bodies in the state are impaired by their presence.

As difficult as it is for terminals to meet current pollutant discharge levels, the proposed amendments set much lower levels. Additional pollutant limits based on Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) will be incorporated into the IGP for specific impaired water bodies. These pollutant levels are typically much lower than those already established in the IGP and would require additional mitigation measures. Terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach will be especially impacted due to the impaired nature of the harbor waters and it is questionable whether some of the levels can be met regardless of mitigation measures. And if that is not enough, the proposed amendments add a new metric for these pollutants, the Numeric Effluent Limitation (NEL), which in addition to imposing lower pollutant limits, also poses greater legal risk to facilities. Under the Numeric Action Levels (NAL) provision in the current IGP, pollutant levels can be exceeded in a storm event, but only if the discharger adopts Water Board approved corrective mitigation measures, the facility is considered in compliance with their permit. But exceedance of NELs places the permit holder in violation of the permit, regardless of actions taken. This exposes the permit holder to fines and penalties by the Water Board, and more significantly will greatly expose them to third party lawsuits.

There are some positive aspects to the proposed amendments, including off-site compliance options through municipal treatment systems. However on the whole, the proposal sets up the potential for forcing terminals to spend tens of millions of dollars without being assured of compliance at the end of the road.

Misery loves company, and almost every industrial facility in the state is wondering how they might cope with these new requirements. So the Water Board is getting an earful from around the state. For the maritime industry, consider it just one more straw on the camel’s back.

Container dwell time at San Pedro Bay ports improved in February 2018 despite historic volumes at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for the month of February.

Dwell time, measured by the number of days containers are on a terminal after being offloaded from a ship, is viewed as a key benchmark of a terminal’s efficiency.

February dwell times continue their seasonal downward trend increasing the capacity at the marine terminals. The San Pedro Bay ports experienced a 23% increase in cargo volumes over 2017 as cargo owners advanced their freight prior to the Asian Lunar New Year holiday.

For the month of February, the average number of days a container stayed on the terminal was 2.63 days. This was lower than the 2.87 days containers stayed at terminals on average the month before, or the 3.08 average days in December. Additionally, the number of containers that exceeded five days at a terminal was 4% - a 3.8% decrease from December 2017.

Container traffic at the ports totaled over 1.3 million in February, and the lower dwell time points to the efficient practices at terminals in San Pedro. It’s a challenge to keep the dwell time down while accommodating traffic growth, however dwell time in February showed improvement a trend we want to continue.