The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) employs a tiered approach to stormwater management, with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEM) providing detailed guidance. For a new commercial development in Western Washington, the threshold for requiring a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPPP) and a Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSGP) is triggered by land disturbance exceeding 1 acre. However, if the total project site is less than 1 acre but the disturbed area is 1 acre or more, the permit requirements are still triggered. Furthermore, even for sites disturbing less than 1 acre, if they are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb 1 acre or more, the permit is required. This is a crucial aspect of the federal Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program as implemented in Washington. The threshold for triggering the CSGP is a critical regulatory point for managing stormwater runoff from construction activities, aiming to prevent the discharge of pollutants into state waters. Ecology’s stormwater program is designed to address both the construction phase and the post-construction operational phase of development.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A, mandates that counties and cities with populations over a certain threshold (currently 10,000 for cities and 20,000 for counties, or those designated as urban growth areas) plan for future development. A key component of this planning is the identification and protection of critical areas, which include wetlands, areas with a high static hazard, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geological areas, and frequently flooded areas. Under the GMA, comprehensive plans must include policies and regulations for the protection of these critical areas. Local governments are required to adopt development regulations that are consistent with their comprehensive plans. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.170 outlines the requirements for critical areas ordinances, which must include provisions to protect the functions and values of critical areas. The Department of Ecology and other state agencies provide guidance and standards, but the primary responsibility for adopting and enforcing these ordinances rests with the local governments. Failure to comply with GMA requirements, including critical areas protection, can result in a determination of noncompliance by the Growth Management Hearings Board, which can lead to sanctions. Therefore, a city’s development regulations must align with its comprehensive plan’s provisions for protecting wetlands, as mandated by the GMA.

The Washington State Department of Ecology’s (ECY) authority to regulate discharges into state waters is primarily established under the Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington (RCW). This act grants ECY the power to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to prevent, control, and abate water pollution. Specifically, RCW 90.48.080 requires that no person shall cause or permit any pollution of any of the surface waters of the state of Washington, nor cause to be discharged into any of the surface waters of the state any substances which will pollute, contaminate, or render unclean, noxious, or impure any such waters. The Act further mandates that any person who conducts any activity that results in a discharge to waters of the state must obtain a permit. This permit system, administered by ECY, is designed to ensure that discharges meet specific effluent limitations and water quality standards, thereby protecting the designated uses of the receiving waters. The concept of “no discharge without a permit” is fundamental to the regulatory framework, ensuring that all potential sources of pollution are identified and managed. This includes both direct and indirect discharges, with specific provisions for stormwater management, industrial wastewater, and municipal sewage. The agency’s oversight extends to monitoring compliance, investigating violations, and taking enforcement actions when necessary to uphold the integrity of Washington’s water resources.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) utilizes a tiered approach to assessing and managing contaminated sites under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is a critical document in this process, outlining the chosen cleanup strategy. When evaluating a RAP, Ecology considers several factors, including the effectiveness of the proposed remedies in protecting human health and the environment, the technical and economic feasibility of the remedies, and compliance with MTCA cleanup standards. The selection of a cleanup method involves a comparative analysis of various options against these criteria. For a site with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater and soil, a common approach involves containment and treatment. In-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) is a technology that injects oxidants directly into the contaminated zone to break down the hazardous substances. This method is often favored for its ability to treat contaminants in place, minimizing the need for excavation and off-site disposal, which can be costly and disruptive. The effectiveness of ISCO is dependent on factors such as soil type, contaminant concentration, oxidant delivery, and reaction kinetics. Ecology’s review would focus on the applicant’s demonstration that ISCO can achieve the required cleanup levels within a reasonable timeframe and without creating unacceptable risks. The RAP would need to detail the specific oxidant to be used, the injection strategy, monitoring plan, and contingency measures. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the chosen remedy provides a permanent solution to the extent practicable.

The Washington State Department of Ecology’s Shorelines Management Program, established under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58, governs development activities along shorelines of the state. The SMA requires local governments to develop and administer shoreline master programs (SMPs) that are consistent with state guidelines. These SMPs are critical for regulating uses and activities within shoreline areas to protect ecological functions, public access, and recreational opportunities. When a proposed development, such as a new marina on Puget Sound, is subject to the SMA, it must undergo a substantial development permit process. This process involves review by the local jurisdiction and often consultation with state agencies like the Department of Ecology. The SMA aims to balance development with the preservation of shorelines for future generations. Key considerations include ensuring that proposed activities do not degrade shoreline ecological functions, such as fish and wildlife habitat, and that they provide for public access where feasible. Furthermore, the SMA mandates that all SMPs must be periodically reviewed and updated to remain consistent with state policies and evolving environmental conditions. The permit review process typically involves an environmental impact assessment, public notice, and opportunities for public comment. The Department of Ecology retains oversight and can approve, condition, or deny permits based on consistency with the SMA and approved SMPs. The goal is to ensure that shoreline development is environmentally sound and serves the public interest.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) employs a permitting system to regulate discharges into state waters, primarily under the Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48) and the federal Clean Water Act. A State Waste Discharge Permit (SWDP) is required for facilities that discharge wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or directly to surface waters of the state, unless otherwise exempted. The question revolves around the applicability of an SWDP to a specific industrial operation. The scenario describes a facility discharging treated process wastewater containing specific chemical constituents to a municipal sewer system that ultimately leads to a POTW. This type of discharge, even to a sewer, is generally regulated. The key is whether the discharge requires a permit. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-216 outlines the requirements for SWDPs. Discharges of industrial wastewater, even if to a POTW, often require a permit if the discharge contains pollutants that could interfere with the POTW’s operation, pass through the POTW untreated, or contaminate sewage sludge. The described discharge of treated process wastewater with specific chemical constituents strongly suggests a need for regulation to ensure compliance with pretreatment standards and protect the POTW. Therefore, a State Waste Discharge Permit would be the appropriate regulatory mechanism. Other options are less fitting: a General Stormwater Permit (GP) under WAC 173-226 is for stormwater runoff, not process wastewater. A Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination is related to federal or state actions affecting the coastal zone, not routine industrial discharges to sewers. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan, mandated by federal regulations (40 CFR Part 112), is for preventing oil spills and does not directly regulate wastewater discharges.

The Washington State Department of Ecology, under the authority of the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), Chapter 70.105D RCW, establishes procedures for the cleanup of hazardous substances. When a property owner discovers contamination on their land that was caused by a prior owner, the current owner may seek a “no further action” (NFA) determination from the Department of Ecology. This NFA letter signifies that, based on the department’s review of the cleanup actions taken, no further remedial action is required at the site under MTCA. The process typically involves site characterization, a feasibility study, selection of a cleanup action plan, implementation of the plan, and post-cleanup monitoring. The NFA determination is crucial for property transactions as it can alleviate concerns about future liability for the contamination. It is important to note that an NFA determination is based on the conditions at the time of the determination and does not preclude future actions if new information arises or if the site conditions change significantly. The MTCA provides a framework for voluntary cleanup and for enforcement actions against responsible parties. The department’s role is to oversee these cleanups to ensure they meet cleanup standards and protect public health and the environment.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) utilizes a tiered approach for assessing and managing contaminated sites under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). The process begins with a preliminary assessment to determine if a release of hazardous substances has occurred and if it poses a potential risk. If further investigation is warranted, a site characterization phase is initiated to delineate the nature and extent of contamination. Following site characterization, Ecology determines the appropriate cleanup action. For sites requiring cleanup, a cleanup action plan (CAP) is developed, which outlines the selected remedy. Public participation is a critical component throughout the MTCA process, ensuring stakeholder involvement in decision-making. The selection of a cleanup remedy is guided by specific criteria, including protection of human health and the environment, compliance with applicable state and federal laws, and consideration of various cleanup technologies. Ecology may issue an Agreed Order or an Enforcement Order to compel responsible parties to conduct cleanup activities. The goal is to achieve cleanup standards that are protective of current and future land uses.

The Washington State Department of Ecology’s (ECY) Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) is the primary statute governing the cleanup of contaminated sites in Washington. Under MTCA, specifically the cleanup regulation WAC 173-340, a “Potentially Liable Person” (PLP) is identified as an individual, company, or government entity that may be responsible for the costs associated with investigating and cleaning up a contaminated site. The determination of PLP status is crucial for establishing liability and ensuring that cleanup actions are funded. Several factors contribute to an entity being designated a PLP, including ownership or operation of the facility at the time of disposal, or arranging for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances. The concept of “innocent landowner” is a defense that may be raised by a landowner who acquired property without knowledge of contamination and took all appropriate precautions. However, this defense is narrowly construed and requires demonstrating specific actions were taken prior to or at the time of acquisition. The question asks about the entity that would most likely be considered a PLP under MTCA for a release occurring during their operation, even if they are no longer the current owner. This aligns directly with the liability provisions of MTCA, which assign responsibility to those who owned or operated the facility when hazardous substances were released or disposed of. The other options represent different roles or defenses that do not fit the scenario of active operational release and subsequent cleanup initiation. The current owner, if unaware of the release and having conducted appropriate due diligence, might have defenses available, but the party responsible for the release during operation is the primary focus of MTCA liability.

The Washington State Department of Ecology’s Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) establishes a framework for the cleanup of contaminated sites. Under MTCA, specifically Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-340, the state employs a tiered approach to site characterization and cleanup. The concept of “No Further Action” (NFA) is a crucial determination made by the department, signifying that a site has been remediated to a standard that protects human health and the environment, and no further cleanup actions are required under MTCA. This determination is not a blanket release from all liability but rather an administrative closure of the MTCA process for the identified contamination. The process for obtaining an NFA letter involves rigorous site investigation, risk assessment, and the implementation of cleanup actions that meet the cleanup standards established by the department. These standards are often site-specific, considering factors like the type of contaminants, the potential exposure pathways, and the intended future use of the property. The NFA determination is based on the totality of the evidence presented, demonstrating compliance with the applicable cleanup requirements. It is a formal acknowledgment by the state that the cleanup objectives have been achieved.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) administers the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 43.21C. SEPA requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions before making decisions. A threshold determination is a preliminary review to decide whether a proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts. If a proposal is determined to be unlikely to have significant adverse impacts, the agency issues a “Determination of Nonsignificance” (DNS). If significant adverse impacts are likely, the agency must prepare an “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS). The SEPA review process is designed to inform decision-makers and the public about potential environmental consequences. A DNS is issued when the agency, after considering the environmental checklist and any other relevant information, concludes that the proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. This conclusion is based on the assessment of potential impacts across various environmental categories, such as air quality, water quality, fish and wildlife, land and shoreline use, noise, aesthetics, and cultural resources. The decision to issue a DNS is subject to administrative appeal.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) administers the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which requires environmental review for proposed actions that may affect the environment. Under SEPA, a lead agency must determine if an action has the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. If the lead agency determines that an action may have a significant adverse impact, it must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). However, if the lead agency determines that an action will not have a significant adverse impact, it can issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS). A DNS can be appealed to the Environmental Hearings Office. The SEPA review process includes opportunities for public comment. For a project to be exempt from SEPA review, it must meet specific criteria outlined in the SEPA rules, typically involving minor impacts or actions already covered by other environmental reviews. The scenario describes a proposal for a new industrial facility that would discharge wastewater into the Skagit River. Given the potential for water quality impacts and the nature of the proposed action, it is highly probable that this project would require a more thorough environmental review than a simple exemption. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800 provides a list of exemptions, and a new industrial discharge to a river generally does not fall under these categorical exemptions due to its potential for significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the most appropriate initial step for the lead agency, after considering the potential for significant adverse impacts, is to issue a DNS if they find no such impacts, or proceed to an EIS if they do. However, the question asks about an appealable action. A DNS is an appealable determination. An EIS is also subject to judicial review, but the direct appeal of a DNS is a common procedural step. The question focuses on the direct appeal of a determination made by the lead agency.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) employs a tiered approach to managing contaminated sites under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). When a site is discovered to have petroleum contamination, Ecology’s primary goal is to ensure public health and the environment are protected. The initial phase involves site characterization to understand the extent and nature of the contamination. Following this, a cleanup action plan is developed. For sites with petroleum contamination, particularly those involving underground storage tanks (USTs), Ecology often utilizes a framework that allows for expedited cleanup and closure if certain conditions are met. This framework is guided by the MTCA regulations, specifically Chapter 173-340 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which outlines cleanup standards and procedures. The concept of “No Further Action” (NFA) is a critical outcome, signifying that Ecology has determined the cleanup standards have been met, and no further remedial actions are required at the site. This determination is based on the site’s cleanup status, which is evaluated against the applicable cleanup levels established in WAC 173-340-700 through 173-340-760. The specific cleanup levels for petroleum are detailed in WAC 173-340-900, Table 830-1, which establishes concentrations for various petroleum compounds in soil and groundwater. Achieving these levels, or demonstrating that a cleanup action plan has successfully managed the risk to acceptable levels, is the prerequisite for an NFA determination. The process is iterative, involving sampling, analysis, and reporting, culminating in a formal decision from Ecology.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulates the discharge of pollutants into state waters through the State Waste Discharge Permit Program, which is administered under the authority of the Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48 RCW. This program requires facilities that discharge wastewater to obtain a permit that specifies effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions to protect water quality. When a facility fails to comply with its permit, Ecology can take enforcement actions. These actions can include issuing administrative orders, imposing civil penalties, or referring cases for criminal prosecution. Civil penalties are calculated based on factors such as the severity of the violation, the duration of the violation, economic benefit gained from non-compliance, and the facility’s compliance history. The maximum penalty for a violation is typically set by statute, and Ecology has discretion in determining the specific penalty amount within those limits. In this scenario, the discharge of untreated industrial wastewater directly into the Skagit River without a permit constitutes a significant violation of the Water Pollution Control Act. Ecology would likely issue an administrative order requiring the immediate cessation of the discharge and the submission of a corrective action plan. Concurrently, a civil penalty would be assessed. While the exact penalty amount is determined by Ecology’s enforcement policies and the specific facts of the case, the violation of discharging untreated pollutants into a state water body without a permit is a serious offense that would warrant a substantial penalty. The calculation of penalties involves assessing the economic benefit of non-compliance (e.g., avoided costs of treatment) and the environmental damage caused. For a violation involving untreated industrial wastewater, the potential penalty could be significant, reflecting the direct harm to aquatic life and water quality in the Skagit River. The question asks for the most appropriate initial administrative action Ecology would take, which is to halt the illegal discharge and require a plan to rectify the situation.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) enforces regulations under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). When a cleanup action plan is proposed for a contaminated site, the public has a right to participate in the decision-making process. This participation is typically facilitated through a public comment period. During this period, interested parties, including citizens, businesses, and environmental organizations, can review the proposed plan and submit written comments to the ECY. The ECY is then obligated to consider these comments and may revise the plan based on substantive feedback. Following the comment period and any necessary revisions, the ECY issues a final decision document, which includes responses to the comments received. This process ensures transparency and allows for stakeholder input in environmental remediation efforts in Washington State, aligning with the principles of environmental justice and democratic governance. The specific duration of the comment period is often defined by administrative rules, but the underlying principle is to provide adequate opportunity for meaningful public engagement before a final agency action is taken on a cleanup plan.

The Washington State Department of Ecology’s Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) is the primary statute governing the cleanup of contaminated sites. Under MTCA, specifically Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-340, the department establishes cleanup standards. These standards are based on a tiered approach that considers various factors to determine acceptable levels of hazardous substances in the environment. For carcinogens, MTCA establishes a point of compliance for the cleanup standard for cancer risk. This point of compliance is generally the point where the concentration of the carcinogen is measured. The cleanup standard for carcinogens is set at a concentration that results in a cancer risk of one in one million (\(1 \times 10^{-6}\)) or a concentration that is protective of human health and the environment. The MTCA Method A cleanup levels are simplified standards for sites with limited contamination, often used for less complex sites. Method B is a more detailed and site-specific method that allows for the calculation of cleanup levels based on specific exposure pathways and risk assessments, providing more flexibility for complex sites. Method C is an even more flexible method, often used when Method A or B is not feasible or appropriate, allowing for the establishment of cleanup levels based on the best available science and considering technical limitations and economic feasibility, but still requiring demonstration of protectiveness. The question asks about the cleanup standard for carcinogens in Washington State, which is fundamentally linked to the risk-based approach mandated by MTCA. The core principle is to achieve a level of protection that minimizes cancer risk to an acceptable threshold.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) implements the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to ensure environmental considerations are integrated into governmental decision-making. When a proposal is determined to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, a Detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under SEPA. This EIS process involves extensive public review and analysis of alternatives and mitigation measures. The threshold determination is a crucial initial step where a lead agency decides whether a proposal is likely to have significant adverse impacts. If a proposal is deemed not to have a probable significant adverse impact, then a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued, and a full EIS is not required. The question focuses on the procedural implications of a specific finding by a local planning commission regarding a proposed development. The finding that the proposal “may have a probable significant adverse impact” triggers the requirement for a more detailed environmental review, specifically an EIS, rather than allowing for a less rigorous review like a DNS. This aligns with the SEPA procedural framework which mandates an EIS for proposals with probable significant adverse environmental impacts.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) implements the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which requires environmental review for proposed actions that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Under SEPA, agencies must determine if an action is a “proposal” and if it requires a threshold determination. A threshold determination is the process of deciding whether a proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If a proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact, the agency must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). If it is not likely to have a significant adverse impact, the agency issues a determination of nonsignificance (DNS). The SEPA review process is designed to inform decision-making and provide opportunities for public participation. The question revolves around the procedural steps an agency must take when a proposal is deemed to have potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, specifically focusing on the subsequent steps after an initial determination that further review is necessary. The correct procedural step following a determination that a proposal might have significant adverse impacts, and before issuing a final DNS, is to prepare an environmental checklist to gather more detailed information. This checklist is a key tool in the threshold determination process. If, after reviewing the checklist, the agency still believes there will be no significant adverse impacts, it can issue a DNS. If the checklist reveals potential significant impacts, the agency must proceed to an EIS. Therefore, the preparation and review of an environmental checklist is a crucial intermediate step.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) oversees the administration of various environmental laws. When a regulated facility fails to comply with a permit condition, such as exceeding a discharge limit for a specific pollutant, ECY has the authority to issue penalties. The penalty amount is determined by a structured framework that considers factors like the severity of the violation, the economic benefit gained by the violator from non-compliance, and the violator’s compliance history. For instance, a violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) within Washington, often enforced through the State’s Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48), can result in penalties. The penalty calculation is not a simple fixed rate but involves a matrix or formula outlined in the relevant administrative codes, such as the Penalty Assessment Schedule. This schedule assigns monetary values to different types of violations and levels of culpability. The economic benefit component is crucial; if a facility avoided costs by not installing pollution control equipment or by discharging pollutants instead of treating them, that avoided cost is calculated and added to the penalty. Compliance history also plays a role; repeat offenders may face higher penalties. The final penalty is the sum of these components, potentially adjusted for good faith efforts to correct the violation or for other mitigating circumstances. The underlying principle is deterrence and remediation.

The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 90.58, governs development along shorelines of the state. The Act establishes a planning and regulatory system administered by local governments, subject to state oversight by the Department of Ecology. A key component of this system is the requirement for local governments to develop and adopt Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) that are consistent with the SMA’s policies and the state’s Shoreline Management Guidelines (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26). These guidelines provide detailed criteria for developing and evaluating SMPs, including provisions for shoreline inventory, characterization, environmental protection, public access, and economic development. The SMA prioritizes protection of ecological functions and processes, and mandates that local governments classify shorelines based on their environmental, economic, and recreational values. For shorelines designated as “natural,” development is restricted to activities that are compatible with maintaining the shoreline in its undeveloped state and that do not degrade ecological functions. The SMA also establishes a permit process for substantial development activities occurring within the shoreline jurisdiction, requiring review for consistency with the local SMP and SMA policies. The concept of “no net loss” of ecological functions is a guiding principle for shoreline development.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) administers the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions before making decisions. When a proposal has the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, SEPA mandates the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The threshold determination process, which precedes the EIS, involves deciding whether a proposal’s environmental impacts are likely to be significant. If a proposal is determined to be environmentally significant, the agency must prepare an EIS. If it is determined not to be environmentally significant, the agency may issue a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). A DNS can be appealed. However, the SEPA process is designed to inform decision-making and ensure public participation, not to prohibit development. The core principle is to integrate environmental considerations into the planning and decision-making processes of government agencies. The question tests the understanding of the SEPA process, specifically the consequence of a proposal being deemed environmentally significant. A significant determination necessitates an EIS, which is a comprehensive study of potential environmental impacts and alternatives.

The question concerns the interpretation of Washington State’s Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and its interaction with local government shoreline master programs. Specifically, it tests understanding of the SMA’s preference for certain types of development and the role of the Washington Department of Ecology in approving and overseeing these programs. The SMA, codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 90.58, aims to protect and enhance shorelines of statewide significance. It mandates that local governments develop and administer shoreline master programs that are consistent with the act’s policies. The act prioritizes uses that enhance the public’s access to and use of the shorelines, while also emphasizing environmental protection. When a local government’s master program is under review or revision, the Department of Ecology must ensure that the proposed program adheres to the SMA’s overarching goals and the state’s shoreline policies, including those related to ecological protection and public access. The SMA’s intent is to guide development in a manner that preserves the natural character and ecological functions of shorelines. Therefore, a proposed amendment that would allow for significant in-water development without a clear demonstration of overriding public benefit or minimal environmental impact would likely be scrutinized by Ecology for consistency with these principles. The SMA’s policy statement in RCW 90.58.020 emphasizes that the interest of the state and its citizens in the shorelines of the state are to be protected and administered by local governments. The Department of Ecology’s role is to provide guidance and oversight to ensure this occurs.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) utilizes a tiered approach for the cleanup of contaminated sites under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). When a site is identified as potentially contaminated, Ecology initiates a process that includes site discovery, investigation, and if necessary, cleanup. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is a critical document that outlines the chosen cleanup strategy. For sites undergoing cleanup, Ecology often requires the submission of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to characterize the nature and extent of contamination and to evaluate potential cleanup alternatives. Following the RI/FS, a Cleanup Action Plan (CAP) is developed and often made available for public comment. The CAP details the specific methods, technologies, and performance standards for the cleanup. Public participation is a cornerstone of MTCA, ensuring transparency and community involvement throughout the cleanup process. Ecology’s role is to oversee and approve these plans, ensuring they meet the cleanup standards established by MTCA regulations, specifically Chapter 173-340 Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The selection of a cleanup method depends on various factors, including the type of contaminants, the site’s geology and hydrogeology, potential risks to human health and the environment, and cost-effectiveness. Ecology’s guidance documents, such as the “Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Sites,” provide detailed procedures for conducting RI/FS and developing CAPs. The final decision on the cleanup action is documented in an order or an agreement, such as an Agreed Order or Consent Decree, which is legally binding.

The Washington State Department of Ecology’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule, specifically Chapter 173-182 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), outlines requirements for facilities that could potentially discharge oil into state waters. This rule is largely based on federal EPA regulations but includes state-specific provisions. The core of the SPCC rule is the requirement for facilities to develop and implement a written SPCC plan. This plan must address various aspects of oil spill prevention and response, including secondary containment, transfer procedures, inspections, personnel training, and security. The rule applies to facilities that have an aboveground storage capacity of more than 1,320 gallons of oil or a buried storage capacity of more than 42,000 gallons, and that could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. For facilities that are subject to federal SPCC requirements under 40 CFR Part 112, Washington State’s rule generally defers to those federal requirements, provided they are met. However, Washington’s rule may have additional or more stringent requirements in certain areas, particularly concerning specific types of facilities or discharge scenarios. The question focuses on a facility that is not subject to federal SPCC requirements but still poses a risk of oil discharge into state waters, necessitating compliance with Washington’s specific regulations. Therefore, the facility must develop and implement an SPCC plan in accordance with WAC 173-182.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) oversees the state’s water quality program under the authority of the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48 RCW, and the federal Clean Water Act. A key component of this program is the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which are state-issued through the State Waste Discharge Permit Program for discharges to state waters. These permits establish specific limits on pollutants, monitoring requirements, and management practices. The question asks about the primary legal framework in Washington governing the discharge of pollutants into state waters. This framework is established by the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act, specifically Chapter 90.48 RCW, which provides the statutory basis for Ecology’s authority to regulate discharges and protect water quality within the state. While the federal Clean Water Act is influential and often integrated into state programs, the question specifically targets the state-level legal authority and its implementation within Washington. Therefore, the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act is the most direct and encompassing answer. Other options, such as the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), primarily address environmental impact review for proposed actions and are not the direct governing statute for pollutant discharge permits. The Shoreline Management Act focuses on protecting shorelines and their associated uses, which is a related but distinct area of environmental regulation. The Public Records Act governs access to government information and has no bearing on the regulation of pollutant discharges.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) administers various programs to protect the state’s environment. One such program is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 43.21C. SEPA requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions before making decisions. This process involves environmental review, which can lead to the preparation of an environmental checklist, a DNS (Determination of Non-Significance), or an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). The threshold determination is a crucial step where an agency decides whether a proposal is likely to have significant adverse impacts. If an agency determines that a proposal is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts, it issues a DNS. If it determines that significant adverse impacts are likely, it proceeds to prepare an EIS. The SEPA regulations, found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11, provide detailed procedures for this review. In this scenario, the city’s initial determination that the proposed rezoning and associated infrastructure would not have probable significant adverse impacts, leading to a DNS, is challenged. The challenge is based on the potential for increased traffic congestion and its secondary impacts on air quality and noise levels, which were not adequately addressed in the initial review. The core of the legal challenge would likely center on whether the city’s threshold determination was arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous, given the evidence of potential significant adverse environmental impacts. The correct response reflects the procedural step following a successful challenge to a DNS, which would necessitate a more thorough environmental review.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) administers the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions before making decisions. This process is documented through environmental review, which can result in different types of environmental documents. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued when an agency determines that a proposal will not have probable significant adverse impacts on the environment, and therefore, further detailed environmental impact analysis is not required. This determination is based on the information available and the agency’s assessment of potential environmental consequences. The DNS is a crucial step in the SEPA process, allowing projects to proceed without the need for a more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), provided that the threshold determination is properly supported. The process involves public notice and an opportunity for comment on the DNS.

The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 90.58, establishes a program to protect and manage shorelines of the state. The Act mandates that local governments develop and administer shoreline master programs (SMPs) that are consistent with the state SMA and its associated guidelines. These SMPs are critical for regulating uses and developments along shorelines. When a proposed development activity, such as the construction of a new dock on Puget Sound, is reviewed, it must conform to the specific policies and regulations outlined in the applicable local SMP, as well as the broader state SMA framework. The SMA prioritizes protecting ecological functions and processes, ensuring public access, and managing shoreline uses in a manner that is consistent with environmental protection. Therefore, the primary legal authority for regulating this dock construction would be the local government’s SMP, which is itself mandated and guided by the state SMA. Other regulations, like the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) or federal Clean Water Act, may also apply and require separate review processes, but the direct authority for shoreline regulation stems from the SMA and its local implementation.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) oversees the state’s water quality program, which is largely authorized under the federal Clean Water Act. A key component of this program is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program, administered in Washington by ECY. NPDES permits are required for any point source discharging pollutants into waters of the United States. The permits establish specific effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions to protect water quality. The Clean Water Act defines a “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” The question asks about a discharge that is *not* a point source. Stormwater runoff from an industrial site that is collected and discharged through a discrete pipe, ditch, or channel would typically be considered a point source discharge. However, diffuse, uncollected stormwater runoff that flows over land and into a water body without being channeled or conveyed through a discrete system is generally considered non-point source pollution. Non-point source pollution is managed through different regulatory mechanisms, such as watershed management plans and best management practices (BMPs), rather than direct NPDES permitting for the diffuse runoff itself. Therefore, the scenario described, involving diffuse runoff from a facility that does not involve a specific pipe or channel for discharge, falls outside the definition of a point source requiring an NPDES permit.

The Washington State Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Program regulates discharges of pollutants into the state’s waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which is delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A key aspect of this program is the establishment of water quality standards, which are defined in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-201A. These standards set criteria for various water uses, such as aquatic life, recreation, and public health, and include specific parameters like dissolved oxygen, temperature, and turbidity. When a permit is issued or reissued, the Department of Ecology must ensure that the discharge complies with these state water quality standards, as well as federal Clean Water Act requirements. This often involves setting technology-based effluent limitations and, if necessary, water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) to protect the designated uses of the receiving water body. The process of developing WQBELs involves calculating the total daily maximum load (TMDL) for a pollutant, if a water body is impaired, and then allocating portions of that load to individual dischargers within the TMDL’s wasteload allocation (WLA). The question focuses on the specific requirement for a permit holder to monitor and report their effluent quality to the Department of Ecology, a fundamental compliance obligation under both federal and state regulations. This reporting is typically done through Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), which are submitted on a regular basis, often monthly. The frequency of reporting is determined by the permit conditions, which are tailored to the specific discharge and the potential impact on the receiving water. Therefore, a permit holder must adhere to the monitoring and reporting requirements as specified in their individual NPDES permit.