proposed renewal of the county of los angeles “municipal separate storm sewer system” (ms4)...

Proposed Renewal of theCounty of Los Angeles

“Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System” (MS4) Permit

Regional Water Quality Control BoardLos Angeles RegionDecember 13, 2001

Proposed Action

• Adopt a renewed storm water permit after considering:– Staff Report and Legal Analysis– Comments from Permittees, the public, and

other regulatory agencies.

Permit History

• 1990: First permit (Order 90-079) issued.– Issued prior to finalization of US EPA Regulations.– Required Permittees to develop storm water ordinances,

13 BMPs, and initiate monitoring.• 1996: Second (existing) permit (Order 96-054)

issued.– Public/residential education - strong outreach program.– Industrial/commercial facilities - required “site

educational visits” only.

Permit History (continued)

• 1999: City of Long Beach separated from the County-wide permit, when Regional Board issues a separate permit to Long Beach.

• 2000: Regional Board adopts “SUSMPs;” State Board largely upholds SUSMPs in a petition from 33 Permittees and other parties. Not upheld:– retail gasoline outlets (RGOs)– environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs)– ministerial projects

Renewal Process• February 1, 2001: Permittees filed a Report of

Waste Discharge.• 3 drafts » April 13th

» June 29th» October 13th

• Outreach– 2 workshops– 2 US EPA-facilitated sessions on inspections.– Countless meetings, telephone calls, and emails.

Renewal Process (continued)

• Responded to numerous oral and written comments.– Change Sheet, dated December 4, 2001

• Late comments– Change Sheet, dated December 10, 2001– Change Sheet, dated December 12, 2001

Existing Permit (96-054)Accomplishments

• Public awareness has increased.• Watershed-based monitoring initiated.• Industrial and selected commercial facilities

have been educated.

Permit StrategyAdd performance measures to the Storm Water

Quality Management Plan (SQMP)• to control industrial/commercial facilities:

upgrade site education visits to inspections.• to eliminate illicit connections/discharges:

upgraded to match Long Beach requirements.• to increase field presence on construction sites

(threshold for inspections lowered to 1 acre).

Permit Strategy (continued)• for Development Planning - expand scope of

SUSMPs to apply to retail gasoline outlets (RGOs), Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), and ministerial projects.

• for TMDLs: automatically add allocations to permit, upon adoption of TMDL, without reopening.

• Enforcement: Eliminated a “Notice to Meet and Confer” before issuing a violation.

Objectives

• Non-storm water (i.e. dry weather) discharges to the storm drain: prohibit.

• Storm water: more effectively reduce pollutants, through source reduction and/or treatment.

• Based on monitoring results in receiving waters, upgrade BMPs through an “iterative” process.

Receiving Water Limitations• Standard for Compliance

– Require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable

– Shall not cause or contribute to violation of WQ standards and objectives

– Shall not cause or contribute to a condition of nuisance» CWA Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii)» CWA Section 301(b)(1) (c)» CWC Section 13263 (a)» Defenders of Wildlife v Browner (9th Cir. 1999)» State Board Order 2000-15, In Re: BIA and WSPA (Nov. 15, 2001)» Memo from Office of Chief Counsel dated Oct. 14, 1999. » Memo from USEPA General Counsel dated Jan. 9, 1991

Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP)

• Improves Current Program – Increased coordination among Permittees– Pollutant-specific outreach– Principal Permittee to convene an advisory committee at least

annually to receive input on PIPP implementation progress – Corporate Outreach Program to educate environmental

managers of gas stations and restaurant chains– Encourages a voluntary Business Assistance Program to

provide technical, non-enforcement assistance to small businesses

Development Planning Program• Regulatory Requirement

– implement and enforce controls for new development / significant redevelopment [40CFR 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)(A)(2)]

– Develop peak discharge control criteria to prevent downstream erosion and protect habitat

– Criteria applied to:• all developments meeting categories and thresholds• projects in environmentally sensitive areas• gas stations where size & traffic threshold exceeded

– Criteria not applied to:• hillside homes less than 1 acre• routine maintenance activities

Development Planning Program

Industrial/ Commercial development threshold lowered [to 1 acre in 2003]

– Redevelopment definition clarified to cover replacement of building foot-print

– General Plan update [requires notice to Regional Board]

– Water Quality Flow criteria added for flow based BMP design

– Technical Guidance for Development Community

Development Planning Program• State Board SUSMP Decision (Order WQ 2000-11)

– Numerical design criteria appropriately identified– Categories identified are appropriate: commercial/ industrial

development, housing development, restaurants, parking lots, automotive service facilities, and gas stations

– Applicability to (i) ministerial projects and (ii) projects in environmentally sensitive areas set aside until supporting findings and justification are developed at permit reissuance

– Applicability of numerical design criteria to gas stations set aside until thresholds and proper justification are developed

– Encourages regional solutions– Endorses mitigation banking

Development Planning Program• Responsive Changes to SUSMP Decision

– Extends to ministerial projects [Finding B6; Agenda p B 279.]

– Includes projects in ESAs which exceed thresholds [Agenda p B 333]

– Establishes thresholds for gas stations (Agenda p B-334) [Findings B.10 and B.11; Agenda p B 281-282]

– Includes provision for Regional Solutions [Agenda p B 336]– Encourages a mitigation banking framework [Agenda p B

337]

Development Construction Program

• Regulatory Requirement– Implement and maintain structural and non-structural BMPs to reduce

pollutants in storm water runoff from construction sites [40CFR 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)(D)

• All sites [regardless of size]– Manage construction waste– Eliminate non-storm water discharges– Control Sediment – Minimize erosion– Limit grading during wet season

Development Construction Program

• For sites 1 to 5 acres– Require local SWPPP to ensure compliance with

local ordinances and inspect to verify– Proof of coverage under the State General

construction storm water permit and pollution prevention plan has been prepared [effective March 2003 per USEPA Phase II regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 68722]

– Keep record of grading permits issued

Development Construction Program

• For sites 5 acres and greater:– Require local SWPPP to ensure compliance

with local ordinances and inspect to verify– Proof of coverage under the State General

construction storm water permit and pollution prevention plan has been prepared

– Keep record of grading permits issued

Public Agency Program• Regulatory Requirement

– Implement practices for operating and maintaining public streets, roads and highways to reduce impacts on receiving waters of discharges from the MS4 [40CFR 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)(A)(3)]

– Implement procedures to assure that flood management projects assess impacts on water quality…. [40CFR 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)(A)(4)]

– Implement a program to reduce pollutants in discharge from the MS4 associated with the application of pesticides, herbicide and fertilizer [40CFR 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)(A)(6)]

Public Agency Program

Continue current program with improvements:

– Site specific SWPPPs at maintenance/ repair facilities;– Additional measures to control trash/ debris at special events;– Prioritize catch-basins for clean-out on accumulation patterns– BMPs for public development planning/ construction made

equivalent to private development planning/ construction– Protocol for pesticide application and storage;

Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges (IC/ID)

• Regulatory Requirement– Implement a program, including a schedule, to detect and remove illicit

discharges and improper disposal to the MS4 [40CFR 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)(A)(4)]– Conduct on-going field screening activities during the life of the permit,

including areas or locations that will be evaluated [40CFR 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)(B)(2)]

• Move to an active program to eliminate illicit connections and illicit discharges– Maintain a listing of permitted connections– Map illicit connections and illicit discharges– Screen for illicit connections and illicit discharges based on 1-5

year schedule

Storm Water Monitoring Program• Objectives:

– Assess permit compliance– Measure and improve SQMP effectiveness– Assess chemical, physical, and biological impacts of

receiving waters from urban runoff– Characterize storm water discharges– Identify sources of pollutants– Assess overall health and long-term trends in receiving

water quality– Provide information for TMDL development

Storm Water Monitoring Program• Enhanced Program

– Two new mass emission stations (Santa Clara River and Dominguez Channel)

– Improved toxicity monitoring at mass emission stations– Tributary Monitoring– Shoreline Bacterial Pathogen Monitoring– Trash Monitoring (for TMDL Watersheds)– Sediment sampling in estuaries– Bioassessment– Peak Discharge Control Study– New Development Impact Study– BMP Effectiveness Study

Reporting Program• Improved Reporting

– Model Reporting Format (Attachment U-4)– Annual assessment of Storm Water Quality Management

Program (SQMP) effectiveness on a watershed basis– Relate Monitoring Results to Storm Water Quality

Management Program– Receiving Water Limitations Compliance Report - every

other year once exceedances identified by Permittee or determined by Executive Officer

Tentative Permit

• Changes from the 1996 Permit– Includes State Board’s Receiving Water Limitations – Includes provisions to enforce TMDLs without

reopener– Eliminates the Notice of Intent to Meet and Confer

provision– Requires inspection of industrial/ commercial facilities– Lowers the threshold for construction from 2 to I acre

Tentative Permit

• Changes from the 1996 Permit– Incorporates and extends new development

(SUSMP) requirements– Requires a pro-active Illicit connection/ illicit

discharges elimination program– Includes specific requirements for catch-basin

cleaning and street sweeping to control trash.– Requires evaluation to reduce toxicity based on

monitoring results

Edited Tentative

• Findings – Additional References [B278-292]– Relocation

• Receiving Water Limitations – Compliance Report submittal requested [B-294]

• Storm Water Quality Management Plan– Budget breakdown estimations accepted [B-297]

• Public Information and Participation– RB Executive Officer approval eliminated [B-301]

Edited Tentative

• Industrial/ Commercial Inspection– Version A/C included from USEPA facilitation

[B324-330]• Development Planning

– For gas stations BMPs which endanger health & safety not appropriate [B-334]

• Development Construction– Referral terms for projects 5 acres or greater to

Regional Board is clarified [B-341]

Edited Tentative

• Public Agency Activities [cont’d]– Requirements for new and existing facilities

clearly distinguished [B-343]– Requirements for trash TMDL municipalities

and non TMDL municipalities clearly distinguished. [B-345]

– Street sweeping limited to curbed streets [B-347]

Edited Tentative - Definitions– “Automotive Service” clarified to exclude facilities

without outside exposure to storm water [B-351]– “Construction”; “Development” and, Redevelopment”

clarified to exclude routine maintenance activities [B-352, 357]

– “Inspection” clarified to include curb-side for restaurants [B-354]

– “Potable Water Distribution Systems Releases” clarified to exclude well-head waste water discharges

– “Screening” definition included

Edited Tentative

• Monitoring– Water column toxicity testing clarified [B-377]– Trash Monitoring limited to trash TMDL

municipalities [B-382]

Edited Tentative - Timelines– Local SQMP development extended from permit effective date

to 6 months– Peak flow control criteria implementation extended from 540

days to 3 years– Implementation of SUSMP changes extended by 1 month– Amendments to SUSMP codes/ ordinance provided 6 months– Trash receptacles implementation extended from effective date

to 6 months– Treatment feasibility study extended by one year– Industrial/ commercial inspections changed from once in 24

months to once in 30 months.

Inspection Program

Inspections• Current permit (1996)• Emphasis on education*

– outreach materials– site visits, once every 24 months

• Phase 1 facilities (designated heavy industrial sectors)

• Automotive Service Facilities• Gas Stations• Restaurants

*Envisioned as an interim step, in response to Permittees’ concerns about a more proactive approach.

Why Inspections are Appropriate• The Permittees

– identified critical source sites that contribute disproportionately to storm water pollution

• The NPDES Permit– envisions a partnership between the Regional Board and Permittees to

advance the cause of pollution reduction• Education Only Not Enough

– education-only visits are simply not enough for all sites - inspections do make a difference

• Critical Source – many critical sources categorized by the Permittees are not inspected by

Regional Board staff

Inspections - Options• Three versions - tentative draft

– Version A - modest inspection program– Version B - More comprehensive inspection program– Version C - The current “site education” program

• Mediation Outcome - Version A/C• Modified Version “B” reflecting comments of Permittees• Not “endorsed” by Permittees• Is a better version• Within the scope of an insignificant change

Inspection Universe• Federally mandated facilities (40CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(C) - Permittees are lead

• Phase 1 (2,600) - Regional Board is lead

• Critical Sources– Restaurants (20,000) - Local Health Depts are lead – Auto service (6,000) - Permittees are lead– Gas Stations (1,700) - Permittees are lead

Inspection Scope

• Frequency of inspections

– Restaurants• twice in five years

– Auto Service facilities• twice in five years

– Retail Gas Outlets and Auto Dealers• twice in five years

Inspection Scope

• Level or intensity of inspections

– Restaurants• Confirms BMPs being used via a checklist

– Auto Service facilities• Confirms BMPs being used via a checklist

– Retail Gas Outlets and Auto Dealers• Confirms BMPs being used via a checklist

Inspection Scope• Frequency of inspections

– Phase 1 Facilities (GIASPermittees and selected critical sources)

• Tier 1 twice/five years• Tier 2 twice/five years, but

– no additional inspections if no risk of exposure– once every five years if 20% of all Tier 2 facilities are inspected in any

given year

– Federally Mandated Facilities - twice/five years• Facilities inspected by Regional Board staff are not required

to be re-inspected by Permittees

Inspection Scope

• Level or intensity of inspections

– Phase 1 Facilities (GIASPermittees)• Confirm NOI submitted and SWPPP in place, and

confirm BMPs being used– Federally Mandated Facilities

• Confirm NOI submitted and SWPPP in place, and confirm BMPs being used

Other Provisions• Commitment to pursue progressive enforcement

– Regional Board staff will take on difficult cases if there has been a “good faith” effort to obtain compliance

• after two inspections and warning letters• more quickly for Phase 1 facilities

• Requires timely follow-up to complaints• Requires support of Regional Board enforcement efforts• Establishes a storm water enforcement task force

Inspections - Summary• More aggressive approach needed to effect behavioral changes

on the part of business, and to better protect water quality.• Inspections need to address BMPs to prevent pollution - not

just wait for an illicit discharge.• Incremental workload between educational site visits and new

inspection program should be minimal• Shared responsibility for inspections will optimize scarce state

and local resources, toward a better State and local partnership.

Conclusion• Staff has responded to Board direction given in July

2001.• Permit conforms to “floor” in the Long Beach permit.• Permit is incrementally improved by adding requirements

to inspect industrial and commercial sites, and to include storm water considerations in design of new and redeveoped projects, including RGOs, ESAs, and ministerial projects.

• Staff has diligently reached out to Permittees and stakeholders.

Recommendation

• Adopt the tentative permit with Option A/C for inspections.

Legal Comments

• Michael Lauffer, Staff Counsel

Costs may be Inflated.

• CalTrans estimate of $54 billion for capital improvements includes:– $6 billion in land acquisition costs

(14,000 acres @ $435,000/acres)• Permittees’ estimates of $150 million/year

– IC/ID analysis - costs per City ranged from $0 to $4.2 million

– $114,000 average ($32,500 adjusted average)

Investment Needed to Support Economy

• $350 billion “Gross Metropolitan Product”

• $150 million / $350 billion = 0.0004