Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7359 T INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7359 Is r A To the Mayor and Members of the City Council February 28, 1989 0 r TEXPy Subject: COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STORM WATER PERMIT REGULATIONS AS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, DECEMBER 7 , 1988 Background Informal report No . 7347 presented to Council on January 24, 1989, outlined the proposed EPA Storm Water Permit Regulations as they pertained to the general provisions . Since that time, staff from the Water, Transportation b Public Works , Health, and Legal Departments have reviewed the proposed regulations in detail . Also, the North Central Texas Council of Governments Task Force, which is comprised of the larger cities , has recommended a regional approach in addressing these regulations . Staff supports the general concept of a regional effort to share information, coordinate activities , and evaluate strategies to manage water quality in storm drain system. Comments In general , the staff feels the proposed regulation is a vast improvement over the previous EPA storm water regulations that would have required federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits on each outfall along with detailed chemical analysis . Staff 's major concern deals with the potential cost to implement such a program without federal assistance. Although the City of Fort Worth has had an aggressive storm sewer inspection and monitoring program for several years , it will be extremely difficult to meet the EPA permit requirements within the time frame cited without additional manpower . It is estimated that Phase I will cost approximately $181 ,000 to implement . The cost of Phase II cannot be evaluated until EPA has adopted final rules. However, staff is recommending EPA support and approve demonstration projects which utilize field screening methods that can be used by cities of all sizes regardless of laboratory or scientific staff availability . Additional specific comments are attached. Recommendation Staff is requesting the City Council to authorize the City Manager to submit these comments to EPA by the deadline of March 7 , 1989. Douglas Har in City Manager ISSUED BY THE CRY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS SPECIFIC COMMENTS REGARDING NPDES STORK WATER PERMITS 14 FEBRUARY 1989 Pg 49429 Their discharges should be Certified as non-contaminating and this information should be supplied to the municipality. If the industries are issued guidelines by EPA then they may as well be issued NPDES permits by EPA. Pg 49429 This alternative is possible , provided the industries submit Certified Off-Property discharge information and to the municipal a regulatory agency. Additionally, the industries should provide a list of on-site chemicals and/or other potential contaminants to the regulatory agency . Pg 49430 Recommended using the first flush/flow-weighted sampling . Pg 49431 Should include SIC Code 179 Misc. Special Trade Contractors to include Mobile Washing Operations Pg 49434 Whether or not these tests are appropriate, depends on the industry. Suggest allowing the substitution of a standard Gas Chromatography analysis including tests for detergents, pesticides , and hydrocarbons and Atomic Absorption analysis for metals associated with the industry . Could also include COD and BOD test to determine oxygen demands . Pg 49434 Should be left to the discretion of the municipality of its regulatory authority. Pg 49441 Recommend allowing the municipality to issue permits to construction activities because the municipality is ultimately responsible for all drainage discharges from its confines . Pg 49442 Assuming the ultimate responsibility for storm and drainage water discharge lies with the municipality, further clarification may not be necessary except at the municipal level . Pg 49445 Recommend allowing Municipal discretion because permit programs will vary. The selected methods of delineation etc. for each municipality can be submitted in the initial permit application to EPA. Pg 49448 Should include Federal highways also. If these "highway systems" are designated separate systems , is a municipality responsible for the impact of discharges from the "highway systems" when the highway passes through a municipal district? Pg 49450 Recommend "field screening" all known outfalls on dry weather days at least one time. This is necessary to determine the "problem" systems within the municipality . Following the initial "screen", choose a significant number of "problem" outfalls for routine monitoring. The choices should be made on a city-wide basis to avoid "clumping" the sites to be monitored. ( ref . #49 & #50 also) . Pg 49450 Basically, agree with list of components . Should place more emphasis on Correcting problems and methods for determining whether or not the program is successful (ie . need "yardsticks") . Also, suspect that problems will be incurred with the following items : Characterizing Pollutants - is the quantitative or qualitative--should they be characterized by family , by weight by color or what? Recommend allowing municipal discretion as to how the pollutants will be categorized. Additionally , when several pollutants from the same or different sources are mixed together new compounds may be formed. Estimating changes before they occur is near to Poll impossible . . . May be better for municipalities to develop their own models specific to the area . Pg 49452 Recommend > 48" . . . . . . . This may not be too significant since "Major" outfalls are those designated for screen sampling and the municipality is responsible for the discharges from all outfalls . Legal Authority could refer not only to existing Municipal Ordinances and ordinance-making powers but also to a Municipal Department with Environmental Enforcement or Regulatory capabilities . Most Municipal Health Departments have regulatory capabilities. . . . . . Pg 49454 Add --"known" major outfalls. A field screen should be limited to Rapidly Assessed parameters that can be Readily Observed and Reliably Tested on-site. Otherwise the method ceases to be a "field" screen. Additionally, each municipality should be allowed to develop its own screening methods contingent on EPA approval or demonstrated success of a chosen methodology. Is this a "field" screen? Please see the attached Suggested Alternatives for rapid filed screening various types of discharges and waters found in storm drainageways on dry weather days . -2- Believe the proposed methods are very time-consuming and expensive for the information gained from such specific testing. Knowledge gained from observing persistent biological , physical and chemical features is much more valuable for noting ongoing problems in drainage water. Unless pH is very low, our experience has shown that few toxic metals will be found in dry weather drainage water . Most metals are found in sediments not dissolved in normal pH water . Discharges---(page 114 par 2) . Agree with Field testing each outfall for ODOR, COLOR, TURBIDITY, OIL AND SURFACE SCUM, pH, and CHLORINE and FLOW RATES. Suggest additional of Non quantitative NESSLER test for the presence of ammonia that can be indicative of sewage and other organic decomposition. Also, suggest the observation of the observation of sewage bacteria (ie. Beggiatoa , Sphaerotilus , Leptopthrix etc . ) in the drainageway. These are indicative of sewage presence. Additionally , notations of oil and grease on the walls of the drainage can be a clue to illegal discharges . Disagree with initially testing outfalls for : a. PHENOLS - this can easily be detected by odor . b. Total COPPER - without background information the test would not be indicative of very much. Additionally, FW water analyses do not indicate much dissolved copper in drainage water . Sediment analyses may be of greater value however, they are time consuming and expensive. c. Chromium reference "b" above d. Cyanide possibly can use spot test described in Standard Methods p. 346. Plating operations that release Cyanide can be detected by fish kills and unusual PH. Do not believe this is a necessary initial field test . e. Detergents - This is an involved and time consuming field test. Recommend using other indicates for laundry detergents such as ODOR, SUDS, CHLORINE and in the case of surfactants for petroleum products recommend observing sunken petroleum slime layers in drainage areas as well as oil slicks when the waters are disturbed. OOW Believe the task of identifying ILLEGAL DUMPING & ILLICIT CONNECTIONS from industry and sanitary sewers can be accomplished with fewer and less expensive -3- analyses . For example; the following tests can be used :Opl► to accomplish the tasks : (ref . profile and pie charts FW 1988) Sanitary Wastewater - can be detected by a combined field evaluation including ODOR, COLOR positive NESSLER REACTION, presence of SEWAGE BACTERIA, presence of SOAP BUDS, and TOILET PAPER etc . Industrial Waste and Wastewater - can be detected in the field by ODOR, presence of FLOATABLE SOLIDS (scum) , OIL SHEENS, PH, TURBIDITY and FISH KILLS . Solvents and other organic Materials - can be detected in the field by ODOR, COLOR (especially for paint) , FISH KILLS, and UNUSUAL SURFACE SHEENS. Metals in water can be analyzed easily with Atomic Absorption. COMMENTS: Suggest EPA consider using the "Profile" method for making its evaluations of municipal outfalls . Since profiles can be based on the incidence-of-occurrence of selected Undesirable Features they can be valuable tools for making rapid evaluations of water quality in complex storm drain systems . ( ref . Fort Worth Water Quality SOP, Falkenbury OW 1986) . Recommended strong support for the alternative in lieu of conducting the field screen analysis required for Part 2 of the application. Pg 49457 Recommend that management programs include broad categories for DETECTING, INVESTIGATING, CONTROLLING/CORRECTING and PREVENTING drainage-water pollution problems that result from any activity. Recommend Allowing municipal Discretion for parameters selected for Monitoring Programs . Ref . #49 and #50 Pg 49461 a. Individual industrial facilities included in the suggested SIC codes. b. Through its investigative procedures that should be outlined .in each municipal permit . ref . #56 c. NO d. Broad spectrum evaluations are good indicators for environmental problems . However, VOC will not tell 0011 much about water since most Volatiles are released from the water to the air when the water is agitated. GC -4- analysis for minute amounts of solvents etc. would probably be better . OR use your nose . . . . . . its good down to parts per billion. . . . Pg 49461 Municipal status reports must include some method of profiling or indicating the water quality in the drainage systems over time (ie. a yardstick) to evaluate the success of municipal programs . Results from routine dry weather monitoring of selected drainages can be used for constructing profiles of water quality. ref . #49 , 50 and W .Q. SOP Falkenbury, 1986 ( for further information contact James Gallup, Chief of Permits Division, U .S . EPA, Washington, D.C . ) . Pg 49463 It is more cost effective to use source controls than end-of-pipe controls . This may be particularly true when retention ponds are considered and realistically evaluated from the standpoint of their ability to collect hazardous material and the necessity for a municipality to eventually dispose of the collected material . STORM WATER DISCHARGE PERMITS Pg 49465 1. 122 . 21(8) (7 ) Effluent Characteristics - When taking flow weighted samples , wording should be included that allows for estimation of flow from storm sewers . Exact methods of flow measurement are difficult and expensive. Pg 49466 2 . 122 . 26(a) (3) (vii ) Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems - Municipalities should have flexibility to determine on a case-by-case basis whether an industry should be regulated by that municipality or obtain a storm water discharge permit directly from EPA. Pg 49466 3 . 122 . 26(a) (3) (iii ) and (d) Large and Medium 49470 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems - Governmental agencies that discharge storm waters to a municipal permitte should be required to be co-permittees for the op" storm sewer system, independent of their population . Pg 49467 4. 122 . 26(b) (9) Definitions - The exclusion portion of the definition of "outfall " should be clarified . As written, the meaning could be interpreted differently . Pg 49467 5 . 122 . 26(6) (13) (v) and (ix) Definitions - Stormwater discharges from landfills and land used for sludge disposal are regulated under other federal regulations , and should not be required to obtain permits under these regulations if they are on POTW lands and discharge to the municipal stormwater system. �6- LEGAL CONCERNS Comment on legal authority of municipalities to implement control strategies and ordinances to control storm water flows or pollutent discharges to municipal systems . The legal authority of municipal permittees to implement control measures for storm water sewer systems varies from state to state. The teeth in the enforcement mechanisms for each municipality will thus vary based upon where the municipality is located. The one uniform approach which is seemingly available to all municipalities for ordinance violation is injunctive action . While the injunction is an effective tool , it is a fairly involved process requiring great expense of legal resources in of" its pursuit . The greatest diversity in enforcement capability will be apparent in the application of criminal penalties for ordinance violations. An ordinance is only as strong as is the penalty for its violation. Hence those municipalities which can levy jail time for criminal violation posses greater enforcement capability than those which cannot assess jail time for criminal violations . This type of diversity in remedies could result in unequal application of penalties for the same act committed in two different states . Comment on when is it not appropriate to hold a municipality liable for discharge to its system? It is not appropriate to hold a municipality responsible for discharges to its system when such discharges are the result of an individual or a private company discharging into the municipality's system without its knowledge or permission or when such discharge is in direct contravention of a municipality' s order to the contrary. To hold otherwise would make a municipality unilaterally liable with no defense for any improper discharge found in its system. Pow -7-