WWE “Brown Bag” Webinar, noon – 1 p.m. MST November 14, 2012 Recent Regulatory Developments in the Construction & Post- Construction Stormwater World Presented by: Jennifer Keyes, CPESC &T. Andrew Earles, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE
Webinar Overview• Purpose of webinar• “Beta” testing (please be forgiving)• Technical topics: – EPA Construction General Permit and ELGs – EPA Post-Construction Stormwater Rulemaking• Questions• Potential for future webinars?• Webinars as a customized training tool.
EPA Construction GeneralPermit & Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs)
Construction General Permit (CGP)• Issued in February 16, 2012• Emphasis on Effluent Limitations (non- numeric)• Turbidity numeric limits removed from permit. Earliest limits will be included 2017.
Areas where EPA has Regulatory Authority• Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, District of Columbia• U.S territories• Tribal lands (within many states)• Federal facilities within Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, Washington• Limited areas of Oklahoma and Texas
Oil and Gas E&P Exemption Based on Federal Stormwater RequirementsThe operator of an existing or newdischarge composed entirely of storm waterfrom an oil or gas exploration, production,processing, or treatment operation, ortransmission facility is NOT required tosubmit a permit application, unless thefacility:• Has had a discharge of storm water resulting in the discharge of a reportable quantity for which notification is or was required.• Contributes to a violation of a water quality standard.
CGP 2012 – New elements NOI waiting period … now 14 days ELGs for Erosion and Sediment Control and Water-Quality Based ELGs Buffer zone requirements Qualifying storm … now 0.25” Strict timelines on maintenance/repairs and corrective actions. Corrective action reports Conditional Eligibility
Conditional Eligibility• Emergency-Related Activities – file NOI within 30 days after commencing earthwork.• New sources with reasonable potential to impact water quality standards can be covered with additional requirements.• Discharges to Waters with High Water Quality – New sources discharging to Tier 2, 2.5 or 3 waters additional requirements.• Cationic Treatment Chemicals – cannot be covered under CGP without EPA regional approval and includes additional information.
Erosion & Sediment Control Requirements Buffers
Buffer Requirements• Need to maintain 50 feet of buffer• Designated stormwater control not surface waters (drainage swales, inlets, stormwater basins etc.) http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm
Buffer Alternative http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm Step 1: Estimate Sediment Removal Efficiency from 50-foot Buffer Step 2: Design Controls that Match Sediment Removal Efficiency of 50-ft Buffer. Step 3: Document How Site-Specific Controls Will Achieve Sediment Removal Efficiency of 50-ft Buffer and which model was utilized. 11
Buffer Exceptions No discharge of stormwater through the buffer zone Where no natural buffer exists, unless you remove portions ofpre-existing development. Linear projects with restricted right-of-way (some requirementsstill apply). Small residential lots - <1use menu of controls. 404 permitted constructionor construction of water accessareas (piers, boat ramps). 12
Pollution Prevention Requirements• Prohibited Discharges• Pollution Prevention Standards (Fueling, Maintenance, and minimize exposure to stormwater)• General Maintenance Requirements (same timeline routine immediate no later than next day – significant 7 days)• Emergency Spill Notification
Specific requirements for washout of paint, concrete, and other materials (leak proof) Fertilizer discharge restrictions apply Cover for storage of building products, pesticides, herbicides, and landscape materials Store hazardous waste consistent with RCRA requirements
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations• Must meet water quality standards• Discharge limitations for impaired waters (more information in NOI and SWPPP and increased inspection and stabilization requirements)• Discharge to high quality waters (more information in NOI and increased inspection and stabilization requirements)
Stabilization Initiate soil stabilization “immediately” Complete stabilization within14 days Semi-arid/arid exceptions provided SWPPP documentation (still need temporary non-veg) Conditions beyond control Sensitive waters exceptions (303 d and TMDL and high quality) – 7 days
Stabilization Criteria• Uniform vegetation (no large bare patches)• 70% or more of the density of pre- construction coverage• Vegetation must be perennial• Provide cover after seeding (mulch and rolled product)• Arid and semi arid areas allowances (seed must provide veg in 3 years and cover for erosion 3 years)
Maintenance and Corrective Actions• New EPA Inspection Template• New EPA Corrective Action Report Template• Differentiation between repairs/maintenance versus corrective actions• Shorter timelines for each to be completed within.
Inspections• At least every 7 days; or• Once every 14 days and after storm events of 0.25 or greater• Increased inspection frequency for discharges to impaired or high quality waters (7 days and after every storm)• Reduced Inspection frequency (frozen conditions, arid/semi arid areas, and areas where stabilization measures have occurred).
Important Factors to Consider• Local and State Requirements and Expectations •Multiple Jurisdictional Enforcement •MS4 Programs •States •Federal agencies (EPA, BLM, U.S Forest Service, USACE)
Colorado CDPS Stormwater Discharge Permit Associated with Construction Activities• State permits that have been issued since the CGP was issued vary in requirements. State permits are approved by EPA and can differ from the CGP.• Administratively extended the permit in July 2012.• No plans to start work on new permit until fall 2013.• Anticipate new language on ELGs.
What Can You Do?• Get Involved in the Permit Process • Stakeholder meeting – CDPHE should have at least one stakeholder meeting during the time period when they are writing the permit. • Public Comments – CDPHE will post the draft permit and accept comments on the permit.
Achieving Compliance•KNOWLEDGE •Well developed SWPPP involving the contractor/operator, developer/owner, and the consultant or in-house stormwater expert •Dynamic SWPPP with continuous updates •Training •Anticipated Phasing •Budgeting appropriately (i.e. increased maintenance and stabilization costs)•COMMUNICATION•Clearly identified Stormwater Team(roles and responsibilities)
Achieving Compliance•DOCUMENTATION•Pro-active maintenance and field adjustments•Updating paperwork –SWPPP and Maps•Keeping training records and updated associatedrecords and plans (e.g, SPCC, MSDS sheets/chemicalinventories etc.)
Proposed National Rulemaking to Strengthen the Stormwater Program Key proposed rulemaking actions: • Develop performance standards for newly developed and redeveloped sites; • Explore options for expanding the protections of the MS4 program; • Evaluate options for establishing and implementing a municipal program to reduce discharges from existing development; • Evaluate establishing a single set of minimum measures requirements for regulated MS4s. However, industrial requirements may only apply to regulated MS4s serving populations of 100,000 or more; • Explore options for establishing specific requirements for transportation facilities; • Evaluating additional provisions specific to the Chesapeake Bay watershed.Summarized from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking.cfm
Summary of State Stormwater StandardsFrom: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_state_summary_standards.pdf
Stormwater Management for Federal Facilities under Sect. 438 of Energy Independence & Security Act Maintain or restore pre-development hydrology for federal developments that exceed 5,000 square feet. Two options: • Option 1--Retain the 95th percentile rainfall event--prevent the off-site discharge of stormwater from all rainfall events ≤ 95th percentile rainfall event. • Option 2--Site-specific hydrologic analysis—maintain site- specific pre-development hydrology.Summarized from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/lid/section438/pdf/final_sec438_factsht.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/tp/pdf/stormwater-tele-present.pdfExpandedProtections ofMS4 Program http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/SWC_Boulder_Watershed/WRIR_Chapter1.pdf
URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE US NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 2009“There are numerous innovative regulatory strategies that could beused to improve the EPA’s stormwater program. The course of actionmost likely to check and reverse degradation of the nation’s aquatic resources would be to base all stormwater and other wastewater discharge permits on watershed boundaries instead of political boundaries.”
Thoughts as Rulemaking Progresses(from WWE comments submitted as apart of listening sessions)
Thoughts as Rulemaking Progresses Percentile Distribution of Storm Events for Colorado SpringsRegulations involving (Excluding < 0.08 in)volume control should 100%be limited to small, 90% 80%frequently occurring 70%storms, as opposed to 60%infrequently occurring 50%flood events. 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Thoughts as Rulemaking Progresses Solutions will vary considerably based on both regional and site-specific factors. Becausesite characteristics vary, there will not be a one- size-fits-all solution.
Thoughts as Rulemaking Progresses Survey results expressing opinions should becarefully combined with empirical data, such as information included in the BMP Database (www.bmpdatabase.org), which contains over 230,000 water quality records.
Volume Reduction Analysis # of 25th 75th BMP Category Studies Percentile Median Percentile AverageBiofilter – Grass 16 18% 34% 54% 38%StripsBiofilter – Grass 13 35% 42% 65% 48%SwalesBioretention (with 14 33% 52% 73% 56%underdrains)Bioretention(without 6 85% 99% 100% 89%underdrains)Detention Basins –Surface, Grass 11 26% 33% 43% 33%LinedNOTES: 1) Relative percent volume reduction for each study = 100 x [(Study Total Inflow Volume - Study Total OutflowVolume)/(Study Total Inflow Volume)]; 2) Summary does not reflect performance categorized according to storm size (bin). This isan important limitation of this summary, since large storms that may result in bypass or overflow conditions may not be representedin the limited period of record typically associated with BMP monitoring.
Thoughts as Rulemaking Progresses Although there are many benefits to LID approaches, it is also important to consider factors such as long-term maintenance and the ability of neighborhoods and communities toproperly maintain numerous distributed controls over time.
Thoughts as Rulemaking Progresses Further exploration of pollutant tradingprograms between point and nonpoint sources isneeded, particularly in areas where urbanization has already occurred and more stringent urban controls will have marginal benefits in comparison to nonpoint source reductions.
Current Schedule for Rulemaking • Proposed Rule by June 10, 2013. • Final action by December 10, 2014.http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking.cfm
Questions? Thank you for attending our webinar!For additional information and assistance, please contact Jennifer or Andrew Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 2490 West 26th Avenue, Suite 100A Denver, Colorado 80211 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org (303) 480-1700 www.wrightwater.com