Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 EnforcmntPolicyNPDES Prmt (2) "- . . CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: April 25, 1994 Enforcement Policy for City of Dublin's NPDES Permit Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson 1) /Resolution 2) A representative of the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be in attendance to answer questions. RECOM:MENDA TION: ~ Adopt resolution approving policy SUBJECT: EXHIBITS ATTACHED: FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRlPI'ION: This item was previously presented to the City Council in March of this year but was requested to be brought back with further information on the policy procedures and staffing assignments. The City Council also requested that someone from the RegIOnal Water Quality Control Board attend the meeting to answer questions about the program. In the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act, Congress broadened the requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits as applied to municipal storm water systems. The Act requires that municipalities obtain NPDES permits for discharges from storm water systems, and that all such permits must: 1) include a requirement to effectively prohibit non-storm discharges into storm drain systems, and 2) reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent possible. By this law, cities are under an affIrmative duty to take action to effectively eliminate non-storm water discharges into their storm water systems. The NPDES permit process is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which required the City of Dublin to apply as co- permittee for an NPDES permit with Alameda County, Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control District, and the other 13 cities in the County. This permit was granted on October 16, 1991. In order to meet the requirements of the Act, the co-permittees joined together into the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program (ACURCWP). Under various agreements, the co- permittees set up an organizational structure of how the program would be run, basically establishing a management committee with representatives from each co-permittee and task-oriented subcommittee structures. Each co-permittee was also required to adopt an implementation ordinance which would give the City authority to effectively prohibit non-storm discharges into the storm water system. On July 8, 1992, the City of Dublin adopted its Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program (Ordinance 9-92). This ordinance empowered the City to implement pollution control measures and establish discharge regulations, requirements, and enforcement procedures. It also provided for coordination with other programs, procedures for emergency cleanups, and ways to keep the storm system clean in conformance with State and Federal regulations. Dublin has been inspecting and doing enforcement to date on an educational and informal basis until formal procedures could be developed County-wide. Inspections have been and will continue to be performed by one of the City's Public Works Inspectors. In the time since the passage of storm water ordinances by the 14 cities and the County, the ACURCWP committees have developed a minimum enforcement protocol, the purpose of which is to handle discharge violations equitably and consistently throughout the County. This protocol, or policy, is as follows: I. Warning Notice - Issue for anticipated violations due to poor housekeeping or management practices. A verbal warning is considered a warning notice. Appropriate Best Management Practice(s) (BMPs) may be recommended to prevent violation. Inspected facility should receive the results of the inspections within seven (7) calendar days from the inspecting agency. A follow-up inspection may he conducted within four (4) weeks as the inspector feels appropriate. Example (as a one-time event): The workers in a restaurant mop out the kitchen area with an antiseptic/detergent solution and then empty the bucket into the parking lot drain behind the restaurant. Someone calls the City or the inspector notices the residue during his informal visit to the business. The inspector tells the restaurant manager that the practice must be stopped because pollutants are being discharged into the ITEM NO. ZL . . storm system. The restaurant workers were unaware that the parking lot drain connected to the channels to the Bay. In the future, they will dump the wash water into their sanitary sewer system. Example: Afastfood restaurant allows discardedfood packaging to build up in an open concrete-lined drainage ditch. The inspector advises the restaurant manager of the need to keep the ditch clean because the debris can be washed down into the storm drain system. ll. Informal Violation - Issue, - in writing, for minor violations. The facility operator shall respond within ten (10) days oC receiving inspection results with the following information: the cause of the violation, corrective actions being taken, and date anticipated for corrective action to be completed. A Collow-up inspection is conducted within 4S days of initial inspection. If violations persist, issue Cormal violation or begin legal action as the inspector feels appropriate. Example (as an ongoing practice): A restaurant places mats and equipment in the parking lot and washes grease and food off with a hose. All the runoff from the cleaning operation enters the storm system via a nearby drain. The inspector notifies the restaurant owner in writing that this practice violates the Clean Water Act. Since it is a regular maintenance operation for the restaurant and rwt as easily corrected as Example #1, the restaurant is issued a la-day notice, which requires the restaurant to respond with an alternative plan for washing the equipment within ten days of receipt of the rwtice. Example: One of the two examples listed under Item I HWarning Notice H continues poor housekeeping or management practices. Staffwould issue a written Informal Violation. ffi. Formal Violation - Issue, in writing, for major violations or if the response to informal violation is inadequate. Facility operator shall respond within ten (10) days of receiving the formal violation with the following inConnation: cause of the violation, corrective actions being taken, and date anticipated Cor corrective action to he completed. If the fonnal violation is issued because corrective actions Cor an informal violation were inadequate, the facility operator shall submit a revised compliance schedule within rd'teen (IS) calendar days of receiving the formal violation. Follow-up inspection is conducted within 4S days after the facility was last inspected. If the violation is not corrected, refer to City Attorney or County District Attorney. Etample: A restaurant continues to wash equipment in the parking lot after a warning notice and a ten day notice. IV. Legal Action - Failure to respond to previous violation notices should be referred to City Attorney for prosecution as a civil action or County District Attorney for prosecution as a misdemeanor or infraction. Example: Someone is found dumping known toxic waste into a catch basin. Example: A person refuses to respond to or take corrective action required under a Formal Violation. A misdemearwr carries a penalty of up to six months in the County Jail or afine not exceeding $1,000 or both. An infraction carries a $1oofinefor the first infraction, a $200 fine for the second infraction within one year, and a $500 fine for the third infraction within the same year. The four steps can be progressive for cases in which the responsible party does not comply; however, for more serious violations, the City inspector may begin the process at any level. In all cases, the City has the authority to require the offending party to clean up or pay for the cleanup of a hazardous spill. There are no fines involved for Steps I, 2, or 3 of the process. It should be noted that these are guidelines, and that if appropriate, other agencies, such as State Fish and Game, may need to be contacted if a violation impacts the preserves of that agency. Also, under the City of Dublin's NPDES permit, the City will be held responsible for any non-enforcement of the permit's provisions. If the City does not enforce the provisions of the Storm Water ordinance, it could be fined up to $10,000 per day by the Regional Board for violation of the Clean Water Act. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the policy. a:(NPDES) 194-1lmforce Page 2 .. ... .., , ' '~. . e e RESOLUTION NO. -94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING MINIMUM ENFORCEMENT PROTOCOL (POLICY) FOR NPDES PERMIT DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Dublin participates in the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program (ACURCWP) and is a co-permittee with ACURCWP member agencies under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council adopted its Storm Water management and Discharge Control Program (Ordinance 9-92) on July 8, 1992 and was thereby empowered to implement pollution control measures, requirements, regulations, and enforcement procedures; and WHEREAS, ACURCWP staff has developed minimum enforcement protocol in order to handle violations equitably and consistently throughout the County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Minimum Enforcement Protocol as shown in Exhibit "A." PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 1994. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk a: (npdes) 194-1 Iresnforc e e EXHIBIT" A" MINIMUM ENFORCEMENT PROTOCOL (POLICY) FOR NPDES PERMIT DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS I. Warning Notice - Issue for anticipated violations due to poor housekeeping or management practices. A verbal warning is considered a warning notice. Appropriate Best Management Practicers) (BMPs) may be recommended to prevent violation. Inspectedfacility should receive the results of the inspections within seven (7) calendar days from the inspecting agency. Afollow-up inspection may be conducted withinfour (4) weeks as the inspector feels appropriate. II. In/onnal Violation - Issue, in writing, for minor violations. The facility operator shall respond within ten (10) days of receiving inspection results with the following information: the cause of the violation, corrective actions being taken, and date anticipated for corrective action to be completed. Afollow-up inspection is conducted within 45 days of initial inspection. If violations persist, issue formal violation or begin legal action as the inspector feels appropriate. III. Fonnal Violation - Issue, in writing, for major violations or if the response to informal violation is inadequate. Facility operator shall respond within ten (IO) days of receiving the formal violation with the following information: cause of the violation, corrective actions being taken, and date anticipated for corrective action to be completed. If the formal violation is issued because corrective actions for an informal violation were inadequate, the facility operator shall submit a revised compliance schedule withinfifteen (I5) calendar days of receiving the formal violation. Follow-up inspection is conducted within 45 days after the facility was last inspected. If the violation is not corrected, refer to City Attorney or County District Attorney. IV. Legal Action - Failure to respond to previous violation notices should be referred to City Attorney for prosecution as a civil action or County District Attorney for prosecution as a misdemeanor or infraction.