An NPDES Inspection Program That Works
How one county marshaled limited resources to meet permit requirements.
The time and energy required to complete field inspections to determine site compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) make most jurisdictions, large and small, shudder. For agencies with a substantial area of responsibility and numerous job sites requiring field inspections for NPDES compliance, the inspection task might seem impossible. Creating a successful inspection program, organizing inspection procedures, dedicating staff to conduct inspections, recording inspection results, and tracking reinspections require a commitment that can appear to be overwhelming. This article describes the procedures the Riverside County (CA) Department of Building and Safety Grading Division followed during the last rainy season to develop such a program.
In California, state water-quality control boards are responsible for enforcing the Clean Water Act and NPDES requirements. These boards are anxious to delegate the task of "everyday" NPDES inspection and compliance to local jurisdictions because the state lacks the staff and budget to implement the regulatory requirements. Local jurisdictions are left scrambling for funds that will support the level of service demanded by the state water boards. The fact that local jurisdictions are experiencing similar economic and personnel predicaments does not appear to affect the boards' inspection compliance demands. Therefore, jurisdictions' attempts to comply span the inspection continuum from very few inspections to the most ambitious with too many inspections and associated inspection time. Trying to find a happy medium remains the challenge, which becomes a balancing act between providing the quality and quantity of inspections desired by the water board and holding inspection time and costs at a minimum to avoid a monetary burden on the development community.
Meeting the Challenge Head On
In an attempt to meet the state boards' challenge, Riverside County, along with other jurisdictions, has wrestled with this issue. The Department of Building and Safety Grading Division was given the responsibility for ensuring compliance with NPDES requirements from the time NPDES regulations were added to the local building ordinance. But Board of Supervisor members, the building director, and senior grading division staff members did not agree about what, how much, and which regulations to enforce.
Riverside County is under the jurisdiction of three California State Water Resource Quality Control Boards: Santa Ana, San Diego, and Colorado River. Recently the boards directed the county to take a more proactive approach to the NPDES requirement. The Department of Building and Safety Grading Division has a limited staff (nine plan-check engineers, five engineering technicians, and two support staff) that is expected to coordinate all grading activities, including plan-check and inspection functions, over a 7,200-mi.2 area. The solution to the NPDES inspection challenge had to be direct and effective to produce results quickly yet inexpensively, with minimal additional demands on existing grading staff. The Department of Building and Safety occasionally has contracted the services of independent engineering firms to assist in the plan check and inspection of various structural and grading projects. The success rate of outsourcing such services has varied from poor to adequate. Problems have included the caliber of work of the contract employees and the time required by such employees to understand the county's standard regarding plan check, inspection methodology, and policies. After reviewing the requirements and expectations of the water boards and reflecting on current employee staffing levels, however, the county decided to hire an outside engineering firm to conduct the NPDES field inspections.
Advertisement
Geopacifica, a geotechnical consulting firm in Oceanside, CA, was selected because the county already had a contract with the firm for other work. Geopacifica originally allocated three employees to NPDES inspections; that was considered adequate to conduct enough inspections to satisfy the water boards' demands and accomplish the required inspection task in a timely manner.
When the verification program was being developed, a two-year-old provision in County Ordinance 457 required grading projects involving 5 ac. or more of disturbance to comply with NPDES requirements. Smaller projects were required to provide erosion and sediment control measures based on generally accepted engineering practices. Another provision of County Ordinance 457, in place for approximately five years, provides for a fee-based system of payment for building and grading permits under which a developer deposits a set fee into an account when a building or grading permit is issued. As plan checks or inspections are conducted, fees for them are removed from the account until 20-30% of the original revenue balance remains. At that point, if the project has not been completed, the developer is notified that additional funds must be deposited in the account or else subsequent plan checking and/or inspections will not be performed. All NPDES site-verification, correspondence, and recording-keeping costs are charged against the individual fee-based deposits as each site is verified in the field. The more time taken to verify a site, the greater the charge made against the deposit.
Next Page >
November-December 2002
An NPDES Inspection Program That Works
How one county marshaled limited resources to meet permit requirements.
The time and energy required to complete field inspections to determine site compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) make most jurisdictions, large and small, shudder. For agencies with a substantial area of responsibility and numerous job sites requiring field inspections for NPDES compliance, the inspection task might seem impossible. Creating a successful inspection program, organizing inspection procedures, dedicating staff to conduct inspections, recording inspection results, and tracking reinspections require a commitment that can appear to be overwhelming. This article describes the procedures the Riverside County (CA) Department of Building and Safety Grading Division followed during the last rainy season to develop such a program.In California, state water-quality control boards are responsible for enforcing the Clean Water Act and NPDES requirements. These boards are anxious to delegate the task of "everyday" NPDES inspection and compliance to local jurisdictions because the state lacks the staff and budget to implement the regulatory requirements. Local jurisdictions are left scrambling for funds that will support the level of service demanded by the state water boards. The fact that local jurisdictions are experiencing similar economic and personnel predicaments does not appear to affect the boards' inspection compliance demands. Therefore, jurisdictions' attempts to comply span the inspection continuum from very few inspections to the most ambitious with too many inspections and associated inspection time. Trying to find a happy medium remains the challenge, which becomes a balancing act between providing the quality and quantity of inspections desired by the water board and holding inspection time and costs at a minimum to avoid a monetary burden on the development community.
Meeting the Challenge Head On
In an attempt to meet the state boards' challenge, Riverside County, along with other jurisdictions, has wrestled with this issue. The Department of Building and Safety Grading Division was given the responsibility for ensuring compliance with NPDES requirements from the time NPDES regulations were added to the local building ordinance. But Board of Supervisor members, the building director, and senior grading division staff members did not agree about what, how much, and which regulations to enforce.
Riverside County is under the jurisdiction of three California State Water Resource Quality Control Boards: Santa Ana, San Diego, and Colorado River. Recently the boards directed the county to take a more proactive approach to the NPDES requirement. The Department of Building and Safety Grading Division has a limited staff (nine plan-check engineers, five engineering technicians, and two support staff) that is expected to coordinate all grading activities, including plan-check and inspection functions, over a 7,200-mi.2 area. The solution to the NPDES inspection challenge had to be direct and effective to produce results quickly yet inexpensively, with minimal additional demands on existing grading staff. The Department of Building and Safety occasionally has contracted the services of independent engineering firms to assist in the plan check and inspection of various structural and grading projects. The success rate of outsourcing such services has varied from poor to adequate. Problems have included the caliber of work of the contract employees and the time required by such employees to understand the county's standard regarding plan check, inspection methodology, and policies. After reviewing the requirements and expectations of the water boards and reflecting on current employee staffing levels, however, the county decided to hire an outside engineering firm to conduct the NPDES field inspections.
Geopacifica, a geotechnical consulting firm in Oceanside, CA, was selected because the county already had a contract with the firm for other work. Geopacifica originally allocated three employees to NPDES inspections; that was considered adequate to conduct enough inspections to satisfy the water boards' demands and accomplish the required inspection task in a timely manner.
When the verification program was being developed, a two-year-old provision in County Ordinance 457 required grading projects involving 5 ac. or more of disturbance to comply with NPDES requirements. Smaller projects were required to provide erosion and sediment control measures based on generally accepted engineering practices. Another provision of County Ordinance 457, in place for approximately five years, provides for a fee-based system of payment for building and grading permits under which a developer deposits a set fee into an account when a building or grading permit is issued. As plan checks or inspections are conducted, fees for them are removed from the account until 20-30% of the original revenue balance remains. At that point, if the project has not been completed, the developer is notified that additional funds must be deposited in the account or else subsequent plan checking and/or inspections will not be performed. All NPDES site-verification, correspondence, and recording-keeping costs are charged against the individual fee-based deposits as each site is verified in the field. The more time taken to verify a site, the greater the charge made against the deposit.
Before the verification program was implemented, it was estimated that approximately 500 sites would require an NPDES site inspection throughout the county area. Two hours of verification time, plus an appropriate amount of travel time, was allocated for each site during the planning phase of the program.
The NPDES Site Verification Program
The initial NPDES site verification was designed as an introductory inspection. It was an opportunity for the field verifier to introduce himself to the project superintendent, explain the county NPDES site verification program, and outline the responsibilities of the verifier. The initial site verification was documented using a county form designed for this purpose. Figure 1 shows the front of the NPDES Compliance Sheet, which lists simple yes/no questions. Figure 2 shows the second page, or back of the form, which provides room for detailed comments regarding items of concern. Items of concern are the same requirements incorporated into the NPDES portion of County Ordinance 457.
Site verification results were documented on the County NPDES Compliance Verification Sheet by the site verifier, and the completed form was e-mailed to the county for processing. A copy of the Compliance Verification Sheet and cover letter were mailed to the developer. The cover letter included a statement that a follow-up second-round Phase 2 site verification was scheduled around the middle of October. Care was taken to identify a specific contact party for the developer so the county could mail the material to this person. This saved time by guaranteeing that the proper party within the developer's organization received the information regarding the construction site and assisted in updating contact information about the developer for emergency purposes. Site verifications were conducted within existing county district inspection boundaries to systematically complete the inspection of all sites that require verification for NPDES.
Phase 2 site verifications were conducted in mid-October 2001, the beginning of the rainy season (October 15–April 15) for southern California. During this second round, all previously visited sites were field-verified again. All erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) were expected to be in place and adequately functioning. The verifier compared the actual BMPs installed with those proposed in the site stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and observed the overall field condition to estimate a percentage of site compliance. This estimate determined which standard cover letter would be mailed to the developer with a copy of the site Compliance Verification Sheet. Table 1 shows the percent compliance found at a site, the corresponding letter to be mailed, and a summary of the information contained in the letter.
Phase 3 site verifications were conducted to ascertain whether erosion and sediment control BMPs and related measures were installed in the field, as detailed on the Phase 2 Compliance Verification Sheet. In a few instances, Phase 4 site verifications were requested and conducted to verify NPDES compliance.
For Phase 2 through Phase 4 verifications, noncompliance letters contained instructions the developer must follow while bringing sites into NPDES compliance. The Case 1 noncompliance letter instructs the developer to obtain the expertise of the site civil engineer for assistance in achieving compliance. Because sites that fall into the Case 1 noncompliance letter category expose the developer, county, and water-quality control board to an unknown amount of liability, a copy of each Case 1 noncompliance letter is mailed directly to the responsible board for record purposes. The board is given enough information in the cover letter to be able to locate the site waste discharges identification number and Notice of Intent. It was thought that the board would be able to physically locate the site based on the information provided and take appropriate actions to assist in bringing it into compliance.
The goal during the development of this program was the creation of a logical, straightforward inspection procedure. This required close contact between the county and the consultant conducting site verifications at all times. As problems or questions were encountered in the field, possible solutions were discussed and implemented immediately, if possible. Situations to be avoided included any contradiction in the overall information provided and poor verification methodology used by the county or the consultant. Therefore, during all phases of the program, consistency in the information provided and careful verification methodology were used in the field. Computer documentation of the inspection program was accomplished as described below.
Computer Tracking System
A very simple computer tracking system for the inspection program was developed. Instead of creating an elaborate computer database or spreadsheet for tracking purposes, separate files were kept on a computer hard drive for each site verified. The computer files were named using the subdivision category and number of the individual project. Information stored in each site's computer file included copies of correspondence received from the verifier, all correspondence written to the developer, and documentation of a chronology of site events. When a telephone inquiry was received regarding a specific NPDES site verification, the calling party was asked for the corresponding subdivision number. The appropriate computer file was accessed, and all pertinent information concerning the verification was available for discussion and comparison purposes.
Results of the 2001–02 Inspection/Verification Year
Figure 3 indicates final overall program results for all sites verified. The percentage compliance achieved is shown along the x-axis, and the number of construction sites is shown along the y-axis of the graph. One hundred eighty-eight of the sites (62%) achieved a 90% or better compliance level by the end of the inspection/verification period. Of the total sites inspected (300), approximately 113 (38%) remain out of compliance with NPDES requirements to some degree. Figure 4 provides a histogram of noncompliant sites. The 38% might appear to be significant noncompliance, but note that it represents the total number of noncompliance sites in the 0% through 89% compliance levels. The compliance level with the greatest number of sites remaining out of compliance was the 0% compliance level with 53 sites (47%). Fifteen sites (13.4%) were found at the 80% compliance level and 12 sites (10.7%) at the 50% compliance level.
The number of verifications conducted throughout the 2001–2002 inspection/verification year is listed in Table 2. Verifications completed involve sites included in the following subdivision categories: conditional-use cases, parcel maps, plot plans, public-use cases, and tracts. Table 3 indicates the frequency of noncompliant cases listed by subdivision category found in the 0% through 89% compliance ranges.
What Did We Learn?
Despite the 62% success rate (188 sites found in compliance at the end of the inspection/verification year), all concern and interest from the responsible water-quality control board will be directed toward sites that remain out of compliance. The success rate will tend to be overlooked in favor of focusing attention on sites remaining out of compliance.
To achieve maximum site compliance at the end of an inspection/verification year, more attention must be paid to those sites not in compliance at the initial inspection. If the 2001-2002 inspection/verification year is an indication of a standard, more attention should be given to tract and plot-plan subdivisions because projects within these subdivision categories provided the largest number of out-of-compliance sites, as shown in Table 3. Tract projects present the greatest frequency of noncompliance found throughout the percent compliance range. A rule of thumb seems to emerge: Construction sites initially found out of compliance will probably remain so throughout the construction activity. They should therefore be given a rigid timetable for accomplishing compliance. If significant results are not observed in the field within a set amount of time, immediate enforcement action should be taken. Wishful thinking and trusting that construction sites initially found with no compliance will improve is not a realistic approach to follow.
Originally the "in-compliance" percentage rate established was set at the 95% compliance level. Congratulatory letters acknowledging that fact were mailed to developers of sites achieving that percentage. As the verification portion of this program proceeded, however, it was recognized that construction sites would not be able to achieve complete NPDES compliance. Stating that the 100% compliance level was achieved on a site might expose the county to heightened litigation liability if an erosion- or sedimentation-related problem actually occurred. Therefore the compliance level was reset at 90% and greater.
During the verification phase of this program, the county received many positive comments from developers throughout Riverside County. The development community appears to have recognized and appreciated what the county was attempting to do. A feeling of unified effort between the county and developers emerged that will be built on and enhanced during the next inspection/verification season in order to achieve a rapid and farther-reaching number of in-compliance sites. Many builders have expressed their appreciation to county staff for having the NPDES regulations called to their attention or for being reminded of the need for BMP installation and/or enhancement.
In general, the Riverside County area was well prepared for rain during the last rainy season. The only missing ingredient was rain. Southern California experienced the driest winter season in recent history. We observed a significant improvement in the number of sites ready for rain events. A majority of developers were serious about the implementation of their site SWPPPs to comply with NPDES regulations. Developers have obtained valuable implementation procedures and skills that will be of use in many upcoming rainy seasons as well. I attribute the success experienced to the hard work of the conscientious builders and developers found throughout Riverside County, our regional water-quality control boards, my dedicated staff of employees, and our primary field verifier from Geopacifica, Mike Malone. Based on the experience and lessons learned last year, the next rainy season should be much easier for all involved. As for the sites that remain out of compliance, Code Enforcement, our verifier, and I are busy trying to convince those developers that they are still required to bring their sites into compliance with the current seasonal requirements detailed in their individual site SWPPPs and to prepare themselves for the upcoming rainy season, which will make an appearance way too soon.