Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

S TORMWATER P ROGRAM – A N UPDATE Thelma Murphy, EPA – Region 1 April 18, 2014 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "S TORMWATER P ROGRAM – A N UPDATE Thelma Murphy, EPA – Region 1 April 18, 2014 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 S TORMWATER P ROGRAM – A N UPDATE Thelma Murphy, EPA – Region 1 April 18, 2014 1

2 P RESENTATION OVERVIEW Stormwater Rulemaking Status and revised strategy Stormwater Permits Program Multi-Sector General Permit Construction General Permit Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permits Residual Designation Authority Brief summary Petition review Integrated Planning 2

3 o #1 cause of beach closures and advisory days in 2012 o There are thousands of waters listed for impairments from stormwater sources throughout the U.S. o New Hampshire: 83% of surface water quality impairments are due primarily to stormwater o New York: Stormwater is a major and contributing source of impairments in 77% of water bodies assessed o Increased volume and velocity of stormwater discharges cause stream bank erosion and loss of aquatic habitat o Projected 800,000 – 1 million acres/yr of development will increase the amount of stormwater, causing flooding and water quality impacts Stormwater Is a Large and Growing Source of Water Pollution Beach Closures Major Cause of Impairments Growing Problem Stormwater causes beach closures and advisory days Stormwater causes repetitive flooding that destroys roads, bridges, and other infrastructure Stream Bank Erosion Stormwater causes stream bank erosion 3

4 S TORMWATER RULEMAKING /S TRATEGY 4

5 P LANNED F OCUS OF A P ROPOSED S TORMWATER R ULE 5 Establish performance standards for discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites  Builds upon innovative approaches developed by many communities and developers already  Helps to revive urban streams  Creates level playing field  Prevents pollution  Avoids costly stream restoration  Reduces flooding  Creates local jobs

6 S TRATEGY - A CTION A REAS Federal Partnerships Education, Technical Assistance, and engagement with key partners Recognition and incentive programs Strengthen the MS4 program 6

7 S TORMWATER P ERMITS 7

8 U NIVERSE OF NPDES F ACILITIES CAFO 3% Stormwater Phase I 52% Stormwater Phase II 35% Direct Discharge Permits 10% Stormwater Permittees make up 87% of the Permitted Universe 8

9 I NDUSTRIAL A CTIVITIES - MSGP Covers 11 categories of industrial activities Related to manufacturing, processing, or materials storage areas Includes federal, state, and municipally- owned and operated facilities Industrial facilities with “no exposure” of their industrial activities or materials to stormwater are not required to have permit coverage. Must certify no-exposure 9

10 P ERMIT STATUS -MSGP Draft permit proposed 9/27/13 Comment period ended 12/26/13 Expected reissuance – October 2014 Changes from 2008 permit: NEPA review for discharges subject to new source performance standards Electronic submissions required Revised requirements for historic properties and endangered species eligibility Benchmarks for saline waters Effluent limitation guidelines for air transportation 10

11 C ONSTRUCTION A CTIVITIES - CGP Permit issued 2/17/12 Large construction (>5 acres) in category (x) of industrial activity Small construction (1-5 acres) in stand alone section Includes the Construction and Development Effluent Guidelines 11

12 M UNICIPAL DISCHARGES - MS4: Covers MS4s in “urbanized areas” Urbanized areas based on decennial census (e.g., 2000, 2010, etc.) Permitting authorities can also designate additional small MS4s that are outside of urbanized areas Includes non-traditional MS4s within urbanized areas, such as: Military bases Public universities Prisons, etc. 12

13 D RAFT P ERMITS NH Small MS4 Draft Public Noticed: 12/23/08 – 2/20/09 Revised permit public noticed: 2/12/13 – 8/15/13 MA Small MS4 Drafts North Coastal- Public noticed: 2/4/10 – 3/31/10 Interstate Merrimack South Coastal – Public noticed: 11/4/10 – 3/11/11 Revised draft MA MS4: Spring 2014 13

14 W HY NEW DRAFT PERMITS ? Significant public comments (over 700) New census defined urbanized areas New approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) 14

15 S IX M INIMUM M EASURES Public Education and Outreach Public Involvement and Participation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Construction Site Runoff Control Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New and Re- development Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations 15

16 W ATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS Discharges to impaired waters without approved TMDLs Development of a water quality response plan Adaptive management Discharges to impaired waters with an approved TMDL Approved TMDLs in NH – chloride, bacteria and phosphorus Approved TMDLs in MA – bacteria, phosphorus and nitrogen Inclusion of requirements to address the TMDL- salt reduction plan; illicit detection and education, and phosphorus reduction plan 16

17 O VERVIEW OF D RAFT MS4 P HOSPHORUS C ONTROL P LAN MS4s that have discharges to phosphorus TMDL lakes and ponds shall develop a Phosphorus Control Plan (PCP) for those watershed areas served by MS4 drains The PCP shall be designed to achieve reductions in annual phosphorus loadings from applicable MS4 storm drains that are consistent with the established wasteload allocations of the applicable TMDL The MS4 shall incorporate the PCP into its SWMP The MS4 shall implement the PCP 17

18 P HOSPHORUS C ONTROL P LAN C OMPONENTS & P ROPOSED S CHEDULE – NH D RAFT PCP ComponentYear 1* Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Year 5* Cost & funding source assessment Legal analysis Estimate baseline P load & reduction Scope of PCP Described planned non-structural controls Describe planned structural controls Inventory & priority ranking for locations of structural retrofits Implementation schedule Performance evaluation * From effective date of permit 18

19 N EXT S TEPS  Respond to comments – timing depends on number of comments received  Publication of Notice of Availability of final permit in Federal Register  Permit implementation 19

20 R ESIDUAL DESIGNATION 20

21 R ESIDUAL D ESIGNATION This authority is provided in CWA Section 402 (p)(6) and described in EPA Regulations at 40 CFR Section 122.26 (a)(9)(i)(C)&(D) and 122.26 (f). Allows stormwater discharges not automatically required to obtain CWA NPDES discharge permits to be designated as requiring a permit under certain conditions 21 21

22 T HREE P RONGS OF RDA 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) - stormwater controls are needed for the discharge based on wasteload allocations that are a part of TMDLs that address the pollutant(s) of concern 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(D) – determination that the discharge or category of discharges in a geographic area contributes to a violation of a WQS or is a significant contributor of pollutants 40 CFR 122.26(f) – petition for a NPDES permit for a discharge which contributes to a violation of a WQS or is a significant contributor of pollutants 22

23 RDA S TORMWATER P ETITIONS On July 10, 2013, EPA Regions 1, 3, and 9 received petitions requesting that EPA make “a determination, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(a)(9)(i)(D), that non de-minimis, currently non-NPDES permitted stormwater discharges from commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) facilities are contributing to violations of water quality standards in certain impaired waters, and therefore require NPDES permits pursuant to section 402(p) of the CWA.” Pollutants: lead, zinc, copper, phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, BOD, and COD 23

24 C OMMON F ACTORS A NALYZED FACTORSANALYSIS RESULTS 1. Likelihood of exposure of pollutants to precipitation at CII sites Petitioners presented data from the National Stormwater Quality Database to support the contention that CII sites are sources of pollution. There is likely exposure of the identified pollutants in CII stormwater discharges, given their significant amounts of impervious cover 2. Sufficiency of available data to evaluate the contribution of stormwater discharges from unregulated CII sites to specific water quality impairments Petitioners presented 303d list for each Region Petitions provide insufficient data directly connecting stormwater discharges from a particular CII site, or category of CII sites, to any specific water body impairments, taking into account existing controls Regions do not have that level of information reasonably available, given the broad scope of the petition Additional information on a watershed or localized basis would be necessary to adequate support a specific designation 3. Whether other federal, state, or local programs adequately address the known stormwater discharge contribution to a water quality standard violation Regional specific 24

25 R EGION 1 R ESPONSE Region 1 will consider the use of RDA to address impaired waters in a targeted manner where there is adequate evidence and documentation that stormwater discharges from one or more CII facilities causing or contributing to water quality impairments Using a phased approach given the vast number of properties that could potentially be designated based on the scope of the petition Begin with the evaluation of unregulated CII facilities within a watershed where EPA or a state agency has already determined that stormwater is contributing to a WQS violation EPA will consult with States about whether RDA is an appropriate tool in the specific watersheds As time, resources, site specific information, and knowledge of stormwater controls allow, additional phased designations may follow the initial ones 25

26 R EGION 3 R ESPONSE Basis for denying petitions Insufficient data on which to base a designation of CII sites in the Region Because of the wide range of potential sources of the pollutants listed in the petition, it is generally not possible to identify which sources contribute to a violation of WQS without a watershed-specific analysis. Existing water quality protection programs cover the majority of CII stormwater discharges in the Region GIS analysis indicated that the majority of impervious cover is located in the regulated MS4 area and where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and associated accountability framework are implemented Chesapeake Bay TMDL MS4 Permits New/Redevelopment Standards Outside Regulated MS4s Industrial Permits and Regulations beyond Federal Requirements Effective State Programs Pending outcome of existing programs, Region is prepared to evaluate use of RDA to address impaired waters in a targeted manner where there is adequate evidence 26

27 R EGION 9 R ESPONSE RDA is an important part of the Region’s ongoing stormwater program The Region has exercised RDA in Guam and will continue to do so in other areas as information supports targeted designations Basis for denying petitions Insufficient data on which to base a designation of CII sites in all watershed listed in the Petition Because of the wide range of potential sources of the pollutants, would need a watershed- specific analysis to identify which sources contribute to a violation of WQS Existing water quality protection programs cover the majority of CII stormwater discharges in the Region GIS analysis indicated that the majority of impervious cover associated with CII sources is located in Phase I MS4s Phase I MS4 permits are on 4 th -5 th iteration, cover larger geographic areas than other parts of the US, implement TMDLs, and require programs to control discharges from a large number of CII sites GI retrofit projects addressing CII sources in various watersheds in the Region 27

28 RDA S IN R EGION 1 Charles River RDA – based on 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) and 122.26(a)(9)(i)(D) Pollutant – Phosphorus Final permit not issued Long Creek RDA – based on 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(D) Pollutant – Impervious Cover as a surrogate Permit issued in 2009 28

29 I NTEGRATED P LANNING 29

30 W HAT IS THE I NTEGRATED A PPROACH ?  An opportunity for municipalities to propose to meet CWA requirements by:  sequencing wastewater and stormwater projects in a way that allows the highest priority environmental projects to come first, and  potentially using innovative solutions, such as green infrastructure 30

31 O UTLINE OF F RAMEWORK  Background  Principles  Overarching Principles  Guiding Principles  Elements of an Integrated Plan  Implementation  Permits  Enforcement 31

32 O VERARCHING P RINCIPLES FOR I NTEGRATED A PPROACH  Maintains existing regulatory standards that protect public health and water quality  Allows a municipality to balance various CWA requirements in a manner that addresses the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first  The responsibility to develop an integrated plan rests with municipalities 32

33 G UIDING P RINCIPLES FOR P LAN D EVELOPMENT  Reflect State requirements and planning efforts  Use existing flexibilities in the CWA and its implementing regulations  Maximize effectiveness of infrastructure dollars through analysis of alternatives and the selection and sequencing of actions  Incorporate innovative technologies and practices (green infrastructure) 33

34 G UIDING P RINCIPLES FOR P LAN D EVELOPMENT  Evaluate and address community impacts and considers disproportionate burdens  Technology-based and core requirements are not delayed  Financial strategy is in place  Opportunity for meaningful stakeholder input 34

35 I NTEGRATED P LAN E LEMENTS  Element 1 ― Water Quality, Human Health, Regulatory Issues  Element 2 ― Existing Systems and Performance  Element 3 ― Stakeholder Involvement  Element 4 ― Evaluating and Selecting Alternatives  Element 5 ― Measuring success  Element 6 ― Improvements to Plan 35

36 I NTEGRATED P LAN I MPLEMENTATION  Role of Permits ― Incorporate all or part of an integrated plan into NPDES permit where legally permissible  Role of Enforcement ― All or part of an integrated plan may be able to be incorporated into the remedy of an enforcement action In some cases, both permits and enforcement orders may implement components of an Integrated Plan 36

37 Q UESTIONS 37


Download ppt "S TORMWATER P ROGRAM – A N UPDATE Thelma Murphy, EPA – Region 1 April 18, 2014 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google