1 / 32

June 1, 2001 Public Workshop Orange County MS4 Permit, Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program Order No. 01-20 (NPDE

June 1, 2001 Public Workshop Orange County MS4 Permit, Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program Order No. 01-20 (NPDES No. CAS 618030). Mark Smythe Chief, Coastal Storm Water Unit. Purpose of this Workshop. Give a short history on the municipal permit for Orange County

abril
Download Presentation

June 1, 2001 Public Workshop Orange County MS4 Permit, Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program Order No. 01-20 (NPDE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. June 1, 2001 Public WorkshopOrange County MS4 Permit,Urban Storm Water RunoffManagement ProgramOrder No. 01-20(NPDES No. CAS 618030) Mark Smythe Chief, Coastal Storm Water Unit

  2. Purpose of this Workshop • Give a short history on the municipal permit for Orange County • Present a general overview of the current draft permit • Identify some of the prominent issues • Allow the public this first opportunity to comment on this initial draft permit

  3. Storm Water Permits • The 1987 Amendment to the Clean Water Act required industries and municipalities to obtain NPDES permits for their storm water runoff. • Statewide General Construction • Statewide General Industrial • Caltrans • MS4 - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

  4. Storm Water NPDES Permits • These permits are not required to have numeric discharge limits. • The permits are based on an iterative process: • Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Evaluate if water quality standards are being met in receiving waters • If the standards are not being met then additional BMPs must be implemented and the process repeated.

  5. Orange County MS4 Permittees • Principal Permittee • Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Dept. (PFRD) • Co-Permittees • Orange County Flood Control District • Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda • Part of the cities of Laguna Woods and Lake Forest

  6. Orange County MS4 Permit • The first Orange County MS4 permit was adopted in July 1990 • That permit was renewed in March 1996 • Orange County PFRD submitted their application for permit renewal with their Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) on September 1, 2000, which included a set of performance commitments for their program

  7. The MS4 Permits Permittees are required to develop and implement programs and policies necessary, to control the discharge of pollutants in urban runoff to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)

  8. Municipal BMPs • Public education • Controls placed on industrial activities, including construction • Controls placed on residents’ activities • Requirements placed on municipalities’ own activities

  9. Drainage Area Management Plan • The BMPs selected by the permittees to control the pollutant discharge from these activities is identified in their Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). • The DAMP was prepared in 1993 and has evolved over the past eight years. • The DAMP has gone through a major modification as part of this permit renewal.

  10. Major Accomplishments During First Two Terms • Worked with other local public agencies to provide a consistent message to the public • Adopted a model Water Quality Ordinance and an Enforcement Consistency Guide • Inspected and eliminated existing illicit connections to the storm drain system

  11. Major Accomplishments During First Two Terms (cont.) • Took enforcement actions on illegal discharges • Implemented programs to educate the general public and businesses • Assessed municipal facilities and activities and implemented structural and non-structural BMPs

  12. New MS4 Permit • There are programs which were started during the first two terms, which will continue: • Identification and elimination of illicit connections • Prohibition on un-authorized, non-storm water discharges • Public Education • Evaluation of public facilities & activities to identify BMPs to reduce pollutant loading • Monitoring

  13. New MS4 Permit (cont.) • Programs which are new or will see significant changes are: • Providing for more local enforcement mechanisms • Increased education for mobile businesses with high potentials for pollutant loading • Inspection of sewer lines and lift stations or co-ordination with local sewering agencies to reduce the potential for sewer spills

  14. New MS4 Permit (cont.) • Programs which are new or will see significant changes are: • This permit provides the regulatory mechanism for the implementation of urban runoff controls required by completed TMDLs, and • Require increased implementation of structural BMPs in new development and redevelopment at local and/or regional levels.

  15. Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) While the term SUSMP originated in Region 4’s 1996 MS4 permit for Los Angeles County, the 1993 Orange County DAMP, Appendix G, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), presented a list of structural and non-structural BMPs for new development within Orange County.

  16. SUSMPs in Los Angeles • The original intent of the Los Angeles Regional Board was that the permittees develop a menu of required structural and non-structural BMPs to be implemented for certain new development and re-development projects. • When the permittees were unable to develop a program acceptable to the Regional Board, Region 4 staff prepared the SUSMP themselves and that version, with a few changes, was adopted by their Regional Board and was upheld, with a few more changes, by State Board.

  17. SUSMPs in San Diego • Once the State Board had upheld the Los Angeles SUSMP, the San Diego Regional Board staff presented a very similar plan for adoption with the 2001 MS4 permit for San Diego County. • It is important to note that San Diego County did not have a second term permit, that is, prior to adoption of the 2001 permit, they were still subject to the original 1990 permit.

  18. SUSMPs in Orange County • As noted before, Orange County prepared an initial WQMP in Appendix G of their 1993 DAMP and revised the plan as part of their 2000 Report of Waste Discharge. • This draft 2001 MS4 permit for Orange County requires the permittees to prepare an updated WQMP for review by the Executive Officer prior to January 1, 2004.

  19. SUSMPs in Orange County • On January 1, 2004, in the absence of an approved plan, the numeric sizing criteria and groundwater protection criteria set forth in Section X.B.4 of the permit would be required on all new development and significant redevelopment. • These criteria are the same as those in the MS4 permits for Regions 4 and 9.

  20. Costs • Very difficult to calculate the precise costs of an evolving program like Storm Water. • While the permittees report on an annual basis, the costs of the storm water program, these costs also include activities that would be performed in the absence of the permit, such as street sweeping and catch basin clean outs.

  21. Costs • The costs for implementation of SUSMPs as proposed by Los Angeles and San Diego have been estimated at 0.5 to 0.7% of the total project cost. • The costs of no action were demonstrated by the 1999 summer closure of the ocean waters off Huntington Beach and the continual postings of all urban, coastal streams entering the ocean.

  22. Conclusions • Staff have worked with the County in the preparation of their revised Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The permittees have presented performance commitments for the future permit cycle. • Issues that were not adequately addressed in the DAMP have been addressed in the permit itself.

  23. Conclusions • This permit is consistent with other MS4 permits, as well as State and US EPA guidance. • Through this permit, staff expects a more proactive stance by the permittees in the areas of enforcement and sewer system oversight. • This permit is less prescriptive because of Orange County’s performance commitments and progress made to date.

  24. What’s Next? June 15, 2001 Staff will incorporate comments received as of 6/1/01 and release a 2nd draft permit July 6, 2001 Deadline for written comments on the 2nd draft permit prior to the 7/20/01 workshop July 20, 2001 2nd workshop at regular Board Meeting July 31, 2001 Release of final draft for 45-day review August 21, 2001 Deadline for written comments on final draft permit prior to Public Hearing September 14, 2001 Public Hearing on proposed permit

  25. Comments • On May 30, 2001, we received comments from NRDC, Orange County CoastKeeper, Lawyers for Clean Water, and Orange Coast Watch. • All stated that they would not have time to prepare comprehensive written comments prior to the June 1, 2001 workshop. • On May 30, 2001, we received comments from the cities of Westminster and Lake Forest and on May 31, 2001, from the cities of Tustin and Yorba Linda.

  26. City’s Comments Comment 1 Some municipalities do not have control over sanitary sewers. The requirement for identifying and correcting problems with the sanitary sewer systems should be directed at the local sanitation districts. ( Lake Forest, Tustin, Westminster, Yorba Linda) Response 1 Regional Board staff will work with the sanitation districts to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to address this problem. A number of permittees own/operate sewage collection systems. These permittees will be required to participate in this process.

  27. City’s Comments Comment 2 The requirements for new development within 303(d) listed watersheds is contradictory to the TMDL watershed approach; erroneously compares post-development runoff with pre-development runoff instead of with Basin Plan water quality objectives; is inequitable in that current dischargers are free to continue their loadings until the TMDL is implemented; and, ‘no new loading’ will result in the unnecessary expenditures of large sums of money (Lake Forest, Tustin, Westminster, Yorba Linda).

  28. City’s Comments Response 2 The TMDL requirements included in Section XIV of the draft order are consistent with the implementation plans developed in cooperation with all the stakeholders. For discharges to 303(d) listed waterbodies, all dischargers, existing as well as new, are required to implement appropriate BMPs. The permit does not allow existing dischargers to continue their loadings until TMDL implementation. All dischargers must implement appropriate control measures to insure that their discharges do not cause or contribute to any further violations of water quality objectives.

  29. City’s Comments Comment 3 The requirement that municipalities control discharges “into” the MS4 expands on Clean Water Act requirements that municipalities control discharges “from” their MS4. (Lake Forest, Tustin, Westminster, Yorba Linda)

  30. City’s Comments Response 3 In Orange County and other parts of the State, some of the natural streambeds have been modified to convey storm water flows. These conveyance systems are both an MS4 and a receiving water. Beneficial uses of these waterbodies must be protected. In certain cases, these conveyance systems may be used for conveying storm water to a regional treatment facility. In such cases, the permittees must ensure that the dischargers implement appropriate BMPs on flows that enter “into” the MS4.

  31. City’s Comments Comment 4 The permit’s requirement that infiltration BMPs would protect groundwater quality requires information not available to the permittees. This research should be conducted by the State or EPA. ( Lake Forest, Tustin, Westminster, Yorba Linda) Response 4 Infiltration BMPs should not become a conduit for transferring pollutants in storm water to groundwater. If appropriate BMPs are implemented, infiltration systems should not be a threat to groundwater.

  32. City’s Comments Comment 5 The requirement that municipalities monitor, inspect and enforce construction and industrial sites already under the statewide General Permits is transferring the Regional Board’s responsibilities to the municipalities. (Tustin, Westminster) Response 5 The municipalities are not required to enforce the State’s General Permits. However, the municipalities are required to ensure that all construction sites and industrial facilities are in compliance with local laws and regulations. By co-ordinating these efforts with Regional Board Staff, duplicative and overlapping regulatory oversight can be avoided.

More Related