The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.1 Municipal Regional Permit 2 Updateor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL November 3, 2015 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Christopher L. Foss, City Manager Municipal Regional Permit 2 Update Prepared by Martha Aja, Associate Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #1000 -70 The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) issued a permit to the City of Dublin and 75 other Bay Area permittees to discharge stormwater. The current permit, referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), expired on December 1, 2014. The Water Board released the tentative order for the second Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 2) on May 11, 2015. This permit will replace the existing first MRP Permit (MRP 1). It is anticipated that the Water Board will adopt the MRP 2 on November 18, 2015. The MRP 2 includes new unfunded mandates other than those already in place. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Implementation of the MRP 2 will result in significant costs, including purchase and installation of full trash capture devices, development of a Green Infrastructure Plan and increased staff time for trash monitoring. Complete cost implications are unknown at this time, but staff anticipates that it would potentially require over $2.25 million in added infrastructure, staff and consultant costs over the next four fiscal years. On June 16, 2015, the City Council set aside $2.25 million in General Fund Assigned Reserves for MRP 2 implementation. This funding will be used for the purchase, construction and installation of full trash capture devices in addition to the development of a Green Infrastructure Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report on the MRP 2 and select a Councilmember to provide testimony at the November 18, 2015 Water Board hearing. Submitted By Community Development Director 'Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 8.1 DESCRIPTION: Background Stormwater runoff contains many types of pollutants from the urban and industrial landscape. Stormwater runoff or urban runoff does not receive treatment in most cases, and is the single largest source of surface water pollution to Bay Area waters. The federal Clean Water Act was amended in 1987 to address urban stormwater runoff pollution of the nation's waters. In 1990 the US EPA established Phase 1 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) stormwater program. The Phase 1 program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s) required affected jurisdictions to implement a stormwater management program to control polluted discharges from the MS4. The Water Board issued county -wide municipal stormwater permits in the early 1990s to Phase 1 operators of MS4s. On October 14, 2009, the Water Board re- issued these county -wide municipal stormwater permits as one Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo. The MRP expired on December 1, 2014. The Water Board released the tentative order for the second MRP or MRP 2 on May 11, 2015. There are several provisions within the MRP 2 that will be difficult for compliance. If a permittee is unable to comply with a provision within the permit, the permittee would be in noncompliance, which could expose an agency to potentially significant fines from the State and third -party lawsuits. The Water Board held two public workshops on the draft permit (June 10, 2015 and July 8, 2015). City of Dublin staff spoke at both workshops and highlighted City's concerns on several permit requirements, including lack of scientific rigor and analysis on the efficacy of new requirements. The City also submitted a formal comment letter (Attachment 1). The City of Dublin and the majority of permittees subject to the permit have requested revisions to the permit. The permit adoption hearing is currently scheduled for November 18, 2015. ANALYSIS The MRP 1 includes a myriad of required activities including, but not limited to, the following: commercial business inspections, construction site inspections, illicit discharge response, public outreach, hot spot clean -ups and trash reduction. The MRP 2 includes additional requirements above and beyond those in the MRP 1. The notable, new unfunded mandates include development and implementation of a Green Infrastructure Plan, implementation of City's Trash Reduction Plan and reduction of pollutants of concern. Green Infrastructure Planning & Implementation The MRP 2 requires permittees to complete and implement a Green Infrastructure Plan to treat stormwater runoff from the City's existing and future roadway infrastructure network using vegetated areas before discharging the water to the City's storm drain system, while also not exceeding the maximum level of pollutants allowed in the water being discharged. Despite repeated requests from City of Dublin staff, the Water Board was unable to produce an example plan that would not only treat the stormwater but also meet the discharge limits. This is a key staff concern since the full cost implications of implementing such a plan are unknown due to the fact that such a plan has not been developed elsewhere. Page 2 of 5 In the current MRP, new development projects and new street construction projects are required to treat stormwater runoff on -site using vegetated areas, but there is no requirement to treat water when the City conducts street maintenance activities, such as pavement rehabilitation. One of staff's concerns with retrofitting existing roadways to incorporate green infrastructure - type vegetated stormwater treatment areas is the limited amount of right -of -way typically available. The need for additional right -of -way to construct green infrastructure improvements will create significant financial burdens on future roadway maintenance projects and limit the ability to incorporate other roadway improvements such as parking and bike lanes. The green infrastructure requirements will require staff and consultant resources to develop and implement such a plan. The tentative order requires all permittees to develop a framework for development of its Green Infrastructure Plan by June 30, 2017. Among other things, the framework needs to include the following items- 1 . A mechanism to prioritize and map areas for potential projects and planned projects; 2. Targets for the amount of impervious surfaces within the City to be retrofitted; 3. Standard specifications and typical design details necessary to incorporate green infrastructure in projects; and 4. A process for tracking and mapping completed projects. It is anticipated that the development of the Green Infrastructure Plan will cost approximately $150,000 - $200,000. There may be an opportunity for some collaboration and cost sharing among the Alameda County jurisdictions, which could potentially decrease the estimated cost associated with the development of the plan. The City will also need to periodically review and update the Green Infrastructure Plan. Additionally, there will be cost implications to treat the public stormwater runoff using green infrastructure. The City will incur increased costs for the construction of green infrastructure. There is no funding source for green infrastructure projects. Transportation funding is extremely limited in what it can be used for; therefore, the City will need to identify an additional funding source for the construction of green infrastructure projects. The City of Union City recently completed a green streets project that is three city blocks long. The construction cost of the project was $1,000,000. The total project cost (including design, construction and inspections) was over $1.25 million, or a little over $400,000 a block. There may also be some land use implications that will result from green infrastructure projects. It is very likely that private property will drain into the green infrastructure that the City constructs within the public right -of -way. Identifying the best locations to site green infrastructure will require a significant amount of coordination between City departments and private property owners. Trash Reduction Trash reduction requirements within the MRP 2 requires permittees to reduce trash discharges to receiving waters by 70% by July 1, 2017 and 80% by July 1, 2019. The City will have to install full trash capture devices in developed portions of the City (i.e. downtown area, Sierra Court, Scarlett Drive, etc.) to meet the trash reduction requirements in the MRP 2. There are several areas in the downtown area that are not treated by full trash capture devices, including several areas in- between Amador Plaza Road and San Ramon Page 3 of 5 Road. Full trash capture devices require financial resources to pay for the upfront cost of the device in addition to the long- term maintenance of the device. Each large full trash capture device costs approximately $400,000 (includes the cost of the device and the design & construction costs). The City currently has a capital improvement project in the budget and has allocated $400,000 for the installation of a full trash capture device in the downtown area. An additional $2.25 million in General Fund reserves, set aside by the City Council in September 2015, will enable the City to achieve the required 70% and 80% trash reduction requirements. As of July 1, 2015, the estimated trash reduction in Dublin is 60 %; of which 55% is attributable to the installation of full trash capture devices. There are a total of 503 public and private full trash capture devices installed within the City of Dublin. The full trash capture devices installed within the City treat a combined 707 acres. The remainder of the estimated trash reduction (5 %) is from jurisdictional wide measures (Single -Use Bag Ban Ordinance and partial polystyrene ban). Permittees have requested several changes to the trash control requirements, including, increased reduction credit for source control (e.g. product bans), on -land and creek clean -ups and public outreach. Additionally, permittees have requested that compliance be by implementation of trash control actions and not by visual assessments. Visual Assessments The alternative to installing full trash capture devices is to implement other reduction measures and then conduct visual assessments to demonstrate that the reduction measures are effective in reducing trash. Compliance through visual assessments is subjective and potentially infeasible due to the variable nature of trash generation. The MRP 2 requires visual assessments to be done covering ten percent (10 %) of a jurisdiction's trash management areas. Water Board staff was unable to provide a scientific rationale for quantification of trash control using visual assessment despite repeated requests. This requirement is burdensome and would result in additional staff time. The City's approach has favored the installation of full trash capture devices over other control measures because there is not adequate staffing to conduct the required visual assessments. Pollutants of Concern The MRP 2 includes numeric reduction requirements for pollutants of concern, most notably Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs). PCBs were domestically manufactured from 1929 until their manufacture was banned in 1979. They have a range of toxicity and vary in consistency from thin, light- colored liquids to yellow or black waxy solids. Due to their non - flammability, chemical stability, high boiling point, and electrical insulating properties, PCBs were used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications including electrical, heat transfer, and hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products; in pigments, dyes, and carbonless copy paper; and many other industrial applications. The permit mandates a three kg reduction in the discharge of PCBs. Of this amount, two kg is attributed to managing PCB waste during building demolition. PCBs are widely distributed in the environment. The management of PCBs during building demolition will be very complicated and potentially very expensive. Such a program has not been implemented anywhere in the country. Of greatest concern to the permittees is that there is no science that demonstrates a connection between building demolition and PCBs in stormwater runoff. This data gap was confirmed by Water Board staff at a recent "PCB in Building Demolition Workshop." Page 4 of 5 Member agencies may not be able to document the mandated PCB reductions. To address this concern, permittees have requested that the numeric limits be changed to action levels. If the actions taken do not achieve the anticipated load reduction, municipalities can try additional actions or new actions without the threat of noncompliance. Issue of Compliance The most important unresolved issue relates to how Water Board staff will determine compliance. Noncompliance carries the possibility of significant fines. Under the Clean Water Act, third parties can sue noncompliant permittees. It is essential to our interest as a permittee that if we diligently pursue actions specified in the permit, we will be found to be in compliance. Water Board staff believes that the permit should hold permittees legally responsible for achieving specified reductions in stormwater pollutants discharged into waterways, on a stated schedule. At the same time, Water Board staff acknowledges that many of those reductions may not be achievable. This is a big concern for staff that Water Board is knowingly creating a mandate with full knowledge that many permittees will fail to achieve the mandated requirements. MRP 2 Adoption Hearing At the November 18 hearing, the Water Board will consider the revised tentative order along with a change sheet that will include any changes made to the permit at the hearing. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, actions that the Water Board could pursue include delaying action, adopting the tentative order as presented or adopting the tentative order with changes made at the hearing. Past history suggests that it is unusual for the Board to agree to changes at the hearing. The County stormwater programs, including Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara, are seeking support from elected officials to influence the action taken at the Water Board hearing. City staff recommends that a Dublin Councilmember speak at the November 18 adoption hearing. City staff will also attend the hearing and will develop the talking points. Speakers are generally allotted three minutes each. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Not Required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Dublin Comment Letter (dated June 29, 2015) response letter to MRP changes Page 5 of 5 C 11. o F DI'l JR][ IN' 100 CK Puza IDAH, CWNwNa 94M Phona (92 5) 833-6650 low PZj MAUI. My Iclvu.mmmlrMiiiim CUY S33009D mq mmapir CRY SH5010 commmow Mewpmmt ,'HM mlmmio Ebmw*k Dmdbpmm1 M25 833.66510 Finamm(Admhm Sumimr, N21 M3 smo Fire 111PIlreve"Intlilip", NZA M14016 (WY 83�..1616015 Pub & Communfty Serve ces (9215) 556 45,N) Poke (92y saamero mmkwwhA"wm&q (91q S314SID Dublin kx9w 2011 mnmm,dub III i um. ca.!yov ammmaim 1-11'sinst'v"flfted via emai[:: Subject: IGliit y of 1[)1Wl,,Aliin IC ominleiints ,,,,,,,. IMRF) 2.10 Dear A h4umdeg lf; I eiimai1 dateid May 11, 2015, tIlnnle te'mnnt hm I oirdleirforthie SI::::: E:3ay 1::Reigilondl lkquiniidipl.)6l lRegilorsal :Stioii mwateir I::-11eirii,-nJt (Nfl:::ZP)1 was rieleaseld n Notice was givein, that the ideadEqu for recdl1jpt Ion wii I ttir.,n ii ni I coii niirnei"ft ii i th I Draft is 5;1010 pii ni IoIn,.m July 1101,2101:51 Ki response to the WI r Board noticie, I am filing the attached vattari commerds on behalf Ion fli-ile Cfty Of DUUWL Tbarflk you for tl"iie opIjjxii lI: iu irl 1 ty to file tl"iiese cloininileii its,, We a�jl::qpirieiblatie this flirnis 1.1 matyioiu in d youirstaff Ilhl ave. takein to the peanNees In an allompt M reach agreement an the net Mass oUthe IWIP The allacheld tal)[e out[Ines the Gity of E)iu b I lin'S ICI 011110eirnis Wltl'l the dil"'a. ft tentat[ve order. Do not III 'tc:n9itate to iciontaict ii,-ne,,, wltl--n ii ry questioii is at 02183IZ630,� Sincerely, yy le ,Ain nidrew lRussell Assistant I::::1iJbdi1c'W1oii ks I Dirlectioii /,Ci f iEii iigiiil--iieeii Adadme nt. s:T Il: :lll of SIjpiedlflic I oii,"nii,"nisints Attaibi-,iiri � ie in t to I C �i ty rut ID I lb 1 U in Carniments on IDIraft :MIRP 2 .i I 112 219, 2 iD 15 P III is i 1c) In lissluile Suggested Rev�lsllloiin .......... I ......................................................................................................... C � I l".'w, � ................................................................................................................. . .... .......................................................................................................... ................................... T'hie puirplose, of the spiaciiai Prolielicts prOVIsilloins, -- Rir,,,movie tl-te Spiecial PrOfeCtS �R I p c) I t i Ing, lo I 1 ll)lcrlr L h e Ilarml, I a g I lirn t 1h e Ip 1e. I, iry i i t, lira t0 .SIJjpiebial Ipirojialcts inicentivizie Ipirlojects that aire beiii at a wateiii sicallie. F','eiquiiriiii Sjplelciall IProje cts tio first IdE.!iml 0 115t I tie, I,,,0 iiiiHkty I fitillip tlD in' eirndvizie thiese Iprlojects. I le I u ii ir ii in p I c ia 1 P iric)j ie c t is to id le, im o in is t ir a tle hnfeasil:hihty foir I li') tireatin"wint is viague ........................................... . .......................................................................................................... a I id u in in I I I, S S 3 11" �i i �v III �i ff �i ic 11 t ....... C , 3 - Ib , ii 1 (1) 1 )1 ( iii V) As wili it is urdlipair lif a piroileict WkIlch ReVisie to spiebity that ir.)ridly the Staird a[ciirw lurn thierwise WOUdid niot qluaIliify as a R iuUateid I rri P' e I' liil ILAS siurfaiu.,.! airea(s) of �p a iir k i in p i in ts Pii`lDjlPCt. inic]luidips a piarldini lot, that 9 uncovereid paiii liot, cirleatied avore Uhain 15,10,010 ST of aind[oir repidaiccid airle siulbject tiol parki inp to it, lis j lu s t it hie pa rk ii ng Ilrut slu I, f alce t 1,,� ie I, e I Iu iiI I rin I I ts o f IP I c) 'v ii s i c) 11 s siulbject W C.lic anid I C - 3, ic a nid C 3, id r I iq ui i I I, I I in t is 'o I, w10 11 id t I ne leinfiire project site w ic.) u g I b I clo in is ii id e I I id S IU li)j elC t try IC, 3 . ' c a in d C. „',I ................................................................................................................... rie' I I T J` P rin e. I ts, ....... . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ C. 3, 111 (3) (a Iv) SIJplec.,Jal pirlojects, sl-mWid ble- aUilovveld to allslo Rievise tio IaHiow kric.idleiii suirfaclE, ,a in id 411,C]ILAde ry,iiiirdim,M li iacjide Pmt aIl surfaice Ipa iii For pairking For I C 3, 1 ii 1 (4) ( ia ii v) corirvnnerib4ll I iif tllm IU irloject, ii.s a mixield I a 1p 1p I ii I ia 1, .)[C." fIrw III I s r..'! C,3,ipJHl(5)i(e)i(i)b:: pirojact (Lip, resildlential with I grouind filicilor, pirojelcts residentJ41 ii giii-olund I in ic i id I I t ia 1 11 e ta li 10, Nam,- retai0i). �p ia I lk ii in g .................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................. . ...... .... C. I j � G re I n There is 'a liacir, of diriecdoin aird hr'IfDlI`!In,at[on for Provide a siir,�glle IUalllalrn lexairrnp[e hi-ffrastli"Llid.lUirie deveilopirrient of a C iii Plain, thiat rrneipt.s Bloard's requireiryveirits. T[iere arie nio guidehines loir refeirleillicle plairls I ! ive spielcific direlcUlion I thile 9 flilat We CiRrIll USle LO devedliOlp 01I.All" I ipIlair,n, I diavic[o IUD ir"!Willt of t Il°n' IG imeirl all,le CIDI'liceIrli'llie.id thiat wc� MUI� experild 101LA11" hirrdlip.,id P[aln, it is 'a I rieSOUrices lon di-ile, devdbixwent I such a ip[air�, coirrull"T'llOill pratcticle flivat lihe tmKichii nm lI11 thilein 1:�e u,.ejectlel d by Waitleir Bioarld sl lilalrnitliAlil ur eslearldhi iis cloiriducted in Staff a,5 ble. ii III ii rl a id N� lu'l tir.." aidvaniue c)f a Ire, idlaflioini tio eircsii-Airic., L hi 'e I MI I ID f t ih I !( a im, II I ih it h ii is case, their' is no i siciiieriftific backup, ... . .......... .................................................... ,C, 3. j G re ie ir� i aire, nc)t corivirticeid iof 0-iie watleir Piro ViIldle sibleiiiiv i i in f I, as t I I ic t I re bieriefits Chat will lbip achii .wipd f1li the Greeirl illPmfo rr'naflion, i Chat linfirastruicture Rlairn and t!"lei 'CID III ct ilo in of id I ffl D 115 t III t1i 5 t 11 El w a te., I, I I.A dilly Gircw,ein prOjects. "I'll w lbeniefits that wiUl !,ble adhievied rabir) Foir sr,)irviie Green, firmim fliie I (5111 infirastructurip piriojects wiEl Ibie t1i high to jolt -foil cts. liustify l :a.lc)jplct ipIlainlPmiriiI,g, dievle[D Plfmml 111 anid I in is t I I,,ii c r I ir.) ri. C. .j: G re e ru Greeru Irift-astructure projects, partloWa0y kffrastructk.,ire those incorporated into roadway projecits, wiU often tiirru es be unaWe to rineet the C-3-d sizirig crpteria. Greater flexibility is needed. Caj,i(l.�: Green T'he tirne to deve[qjp a fiii-arrieworlc por as Greelin hnfrastmiCtore gnfram.iii Plan iii s irifeasUe, T vve � ve Frameworic rrmv-Ahs is not eriough time to develop the framework and have it approved Iby the City CounciL Whifle the permit does alPovv for as i Manager to a pprove the Green infrastructure framework, a p1an would Ihaav e to be a pproved bV th e C "ty cururuz::uq uveiin t I-w cost .............. . ................. Li rrmp i i r. a ti o n s o f t he p i a ri. C,5, e, Mobde I h e p rovi sio n co nta i n 5 ve ry 5,pec i fic Businesses I requirer-neruts that rriay Wrin out not to be thie rin ost (,.:ffect ive a p p roa c i"n - ................... . .. . . . ............ . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . ..... I ... . ........ . C, 6. i i. �e. i u (,2 Not aH Pern'dttees have such Fffl siiidp kmj,:iection of developmer-it areas defined. I he nienv Viiflsidie pro eu.s ii-equirernent 4ii ses seve,,iral questioiiii, corucerns! • is thiiis the pre existlirig slolpe r:)r the post construction SgIope? • l s it hi i s th e ave rage s�o pe a c ross tVie entire piii sR.e? What is the defirigtior-m of "s�ope" as it ppikes to thk requiiir firma ent""" How is as gr.npnaaa rrieasured? im, ff any portlon (regardless of the iinet arnount) of the siLe exceeds the rrii,riirnum slope thresq iokl does O-Os trlgger the requlrerii fair wiontlhlly irisplectioris of the entliresitie (i.e. say 1010 SF of a 0.9 acre site is corisidered . hiiHside")? ................................................................................ ............. .................................................................. . ............................. . ........................... C. 7. a. i Em. C.'7. es,(:! pirovis�oris would be more appropr�ate Storm, Drairu i n ant hi r sectio, n s of t Peiii i t. 5ugriiage Attachment to City of Dubifin Corn mein ts o r� �..)ra fit m R V 2 Jurile 29, 201.5 ...... ... ... . ... ................................................................ Revise to aHow FlermiUiees to 1,:v-opose an approach to dealirqg witl-'u Project constraints at the Perimittee or couritywide prograrn Igeveq. Add aiternative ccm'qpliance arid aKow till -'ie treatrmn emat faciRy to be locatpid outside t1he wa ter sl-,ied- ................................................................... ReOse to give more Irierrinittees rriore tir-ne to dev&qop as frarriework. A proj,:msc:!�d akernative approa(:h tl-'iat aHows greater fW)dIAitV v0-,ii1e stllll erisuring that the t,:mWern wk:l be addressed wiq be su.be rnited through B AS- UAA. ...................... . ............ . ........................ I .......... ........... .. .. .... .. .. ............... I hdefauK defiriition for 'hilkide" deve ajprrierit shitmfld Ilhar r e0 s g ted a nd f u r t h e r d M Ussed phior to impqemiientatiori. Aiso, as rniriiiii-nuim disturll)ed surface s�-mWd be included in the de f'i n i tio in rat: " p r(,::iject. 11 Move the inarking of rniunicipally rii-mliritainied hi-ilets reqUiremerit to Provisgorn C.2 ar,rd ii t1he rriaiii of privately rinakintairip....,id irdets to Piirovirsior'u C3. Attachinnerit tic) I of Diuluhn C01i"ll"'lli'lliEllif"ItS I lD 11"aft 12 Jimw 29, 2101- C,19,aJH(2)�: ARiern,aLIvr,..! lairigluage 1"x1refleirili Rievisip fii "lPeirmittieles sl),MH �R I 1p io ir t li in ic) r1l piii I description of two pRIA HPIM stir-atiegl1kc?,55 actions iir np]eiii-nentleid ilnrn thie r e �p lc) r it. i in g ' V ip a i to "" P e r r'n i ttle es s m a l l I p r in v �i id e a id i ic ir li �p tli Iu in in f a in "y ri Ie w IlllPl M al t li lo inis Iurrnlpplperrnarnt Ie id I rl .................. I ........................................................................................ ...... . .... t h IP r f., �p 0 r t �i i y IP �a ir'. " ............. . .................................................................................................................................................................................................. C.9,A lirft�erfalcie Thic Ilan guage iin thle cluini plermit lis Revisie to state Chiat 1plerr'nittiaes w I L h Co lu ir i t a d e iq iu a L I II lo L a I I 1p I. ir ry'i li t L e 1 P. s w lilllll ir iii id to s hii A I id es ic ir li lb F- Ia n y Ailg r ii ic iu I it Iu ra clo im ii nurriiratla witlUn t h e ic u u ir i it y a 9 rii l lu lltl u call ic, in rin rrn u n li c a I li c) iri s t h a it t lri e y 1, 1 a vie IC D m rn is s i lo li'l I, i S c lo rr'h rin li s s i o ir i P rs . wiitl-'I th'E" Colili`)ty aglrilculitli.11li"�aIl co rn irni �i s s �i o Irma r s . ......... ........................ .. ..... ,I D'. a. li i . b : ........................... .................................... Tl-'r e fix I to map all Ilaunrf -.1 .................................................................................................................... Rlc,.,,rnlD'Vle this Ir eqUirerne-r-ft firinrlrlu paric-lels P�llulmblpd gripatik'.-nir thain 15,10010 square feli Lhat alli Chip, picn,imidit, dirie,c'UV tio stioirinr� p�1hurnl,:wid diiii-elftIV tio thie storr'n i systeim 'lby drairii systeirin 2018 is aii wflkl Inot priovildle any ................................................................................................................... I cllua[ity bi�einiefits, ...... . ................................................................................................... �C . I D. [:�' i Ii. b (l �i Draft p:xeirrirdt vislua asslessirT'sleint Delciii Che mil6hirinuirn ric.l.quirip.Id IN lo n - �F C In VIE-.,, l': 1 10 % ID f a j iu r is d ii ic t Ii Io in s rn a in 'a ge IM I ir i t a re a Ass ie ss, rn I n t aireas. Tl-'Os i aii burldlensiornic, erspelciiaUly for, Illar, gle, juriirsidictions, ,a ir i id I I ID Iratli o ir i �a I iE, fo ir L hi i r5 Ihligh rate 0f ................................................................................................................... assessirnleint is provideld, .. ...... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11, ' 0, [') . ip li li , ii V: Source Wli`litil-'Dp i an iiuq,aaiii stratlegy iiirnl I rn icirea sip it.lhe Ip ericipint bad �S in IU r IC le IC ID Ill t li- 0 1 li"eiduidirig tirarsllh. A fivic Ip rr leirit bald reidlUiCtI10111i reduc.biorii for sloiuricle IclointlrdP tic) fair IaCl slinuir'Cle 0011i actilainirs irs iniii:)r adequate., 115"1 liru aiddibion, biflies shloidlid bie airild doies ii lira au'ntiin izle I to iirqp[ernitmit al:dle to dairin a pipiricRinit lioald &oluir�cr,'.: Irc~ aii urr icasiuirlers. reldlLACHID111 for loutirleadh E`FfOirts. Oiutireaiclh efforts. I thle Diii stii Chat lchaingiers pieciplii b�ehaviiair, ......................................................................................................... ,C, 1 10, ! b, li i L v ....................................... Vlhle aiii of tirarsh withiiiii uMmmlr., 6iviinip watie.mrs liis .................................................................................................................. We ur eicarniii that thiis Receiving Water i Iriec lessaiii an Iplrrl icabon that thle oindainid requireiii Ible or ,D b s e, ry �a d in ins conitiii measitAiii I eff&&iVie Dir IilrhaffI dietayield i a rlegbini,M stiudy 1-'ias rllraslh wit.1-drill tlhip rl(.ric iviiinr w a t E: r li s Ie x 1 r I. rrh I, I y l,") I I n idrain le t h a t Ip r ic.) v i id P, s a v a ir lia la I ip a in id ca ri li n c I I id e it r as h drat id ic) F2 s n't Iuaintipfpaba le IIIiri k lb I it. IN ir, c., in, tl.o e., ariginairip frown the MS4., siuicl-'n as tiirassl-'h firloinil triash wifl"Ohn thle, M154 IIrelcei harinc,[ess pinicarnpiii &. iMinid [AIDWin trash. wate'r's. - .......................................................................................... ...... . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... LAIC: Pirinvisi o in I 1-c Ii iro clo ii y Ia sslu imle s tha it Re iT i o v I It , 1.1 - ic Bu ro inn I.. h e Pip r rin i it, 11.) 1 'a in a in id irr I ir ic iu ry Ilr lduir t. �i in in ic o r ce ir ni s ca in id d vie it h I T h e I G r e e ir i p in f ii s t ir iu irt. lu ii p 1I a in s 11 irin p I ie mie n t dic.rcisbrns of whieircF iilrnlitliall Girl&ein sl-r in iu I d iot ble bli id tio Pldl.11l 5. G r a Ie in paulr C':r ir LS Ia 11" P C D i S it RA C tie id I in fir a r, t ir u c it, u re to r e id iu ir. e If Cl �B CA2MANY PCB bad default a 1:)�J:) 11",D,a ic h Cl o,. Plan and ,Green Infrastructure to reduoe PCB Loads �Manage PCB- ContainAng I'll atierials anid Wastes durill"Ig Bulltnf�, 1)e ran iolktilon and Renovatimi"i I Aictividies The aMmumh to aoWn qpcMc bad fraVions for PCBs basecl on count V piqlpiulatimin In emiril cii ty 1 s ha we d Me My of Du bN n has a relahvelV high 1310I13111[at.Aoii o; hmvieveii'-, wr.! have voy Me oW Unduorial and ohd Mimi areas. Ito majority of devOopment An Dublin oicx',-ii,irric.'aid An the past 10 11!51 Veam Using flne i iaIj:::q::wriaabll 'WO Ullid a "eSlLflt li ll'l L)ILOblin's requjimment being hlh despite Hm fau dhat wie alin-ost nio solull'"cles of F;ICJB!S —PMA—M0 mi E 1-2 � c I n co. irreict lly a ss u mir..,s Ch a t realudlon omwerns can drive the deldstns of vilhiere kliaMmen Unfrastructure pnojects are cimnumed. AttaMment to Cly of DOW Ommments on Dr9t MRP 2 We29,2015 firoinn tl-iile II Reii'-inlove C. 1. 2 ir, firioin,i the Plerrin A.. NuMmi III haonmume p[ans sli o uld 11")1D t be Heid tio A NA L) Ls - ,A fi-ain°oewoirlc for i'-inanaging PCB cmuMnhg Rimi"iinoviii blhis requiii ii fi,-iii matir.-mials aii roid wastlr.as dlUll'illl,F, lbiufllidilng the 1pernit. donolkAn WWRAes N sorniething Mut Mmuld devirliqlaleld at thie statir to as[aipstios ai:),ate,rii ir.!nt or had Kned paint. I Nn in iu a I Anirwal IReIplartiirn g Is extremely Urner ommming Riegaridliess of whem fl"iiiie 2.10 ll'lupq:xw ting rw w a n d mm u Ad be eve n more a nerou s iit we As aidoptieid, the City ric-1,qu P-s-ts. that wip rir.a rie q u i rir.! d tic.) re pmm rain two se pmra te the annuah rep oraqg pennits. requArement not be spHt between two cl[Ki nenals,