Total Maximum Daily Loads for Trash

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006

Total Maximum Daily Loadsfor Trash


Why a TMDL for Trash?

• Required by the Clean Water Act-- when a waterbody does not meet water quality standards.

• In 1998, U.S. EPA found that the L.A.River did not meet water quality standards, due to trash.

• Federal Consent Decree compelled U.S. EPA to establish a trash TMDL for the L.A. River by March 22, 2002.






January 11, 2001


Narrative Objectives for Trash

• “Waters shall not contain floating materials including solids, liquids, foams, and scum in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial use.”

And

• “Waters shall not contain suspended or settable material in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.”



TMDL Elements

• Numeric Targets

• Assimilative Capacity

• Waste Load Allocations

• Implementation Plan

• Monitoring

• Means of Compliance


Numeric Target

• Numeric Target = Zero Trash Discharge– Litter laws establish zero, no legal level of litter– Waterbody does not assimilate trash– A single piece of trash can have an negative

impact on beneficial uses– No studies to support a higher number– Inherent margin of safety


Assimilative Capacity

• Do gross pollutants like trash assimilate in the waterbody?

–Trash does not “dissolve”–Trash is not a typical “suspended

solid”


Waste Load Allocations

• Municipal Stormwater Permit– By Area x Default Generation Rate– Applied at end of storm drain

• No allocation to non-point sources


Baseline Monitoring Goal

• Obtain representative data by land use to calculate base load allocations

• Watershed-wide data to be used in establishing baseline allocations– Rewards cities that have already implemented

BMPs• Flexibility in allowing cities and the county to

collaborate efforts

Trash Reduction ScheduleTrash Reduction ScheduleYear Baseline

MonitoringImplementation Waste Load

AllocationCompliance Point

1Yes

Not Required None No compliance point.

2 Yes Not Required None No compliance point.

310/1/03--9/30/04

(optional) Year 1 90% of Baseline No compliance point.

410/1/04--9/30/05


510/1/05--9/30/06

No Year 3 70% of Baseline First compliance point


Trash Generation Ratesby Land Use

• Residential• Commercial• Industrial• Transportation and Utilities• Mixed Urban• Open Space and Recreation• Agriculture• Water


Means of Compliance

• Anti-litter campaign and good house keeping

• Partial capture devices in storm drain catch basins

• Full capture devices in storm drain systems


Measuring Reduction in Litter

Effectiveness of Anti-Litter Campaign and Good Housekeeping

Annual measurement for a 30-day period during high litter season to establish the daily litter rate.


Example Full-Capture Systems

• Full Capture = Zero Trash

• Full Capture defined– 5 mm Mesh– 1 hour – 1 year storm

Year BaselineMonitoring

Implementation Waste LoadAllocation

Compliance Point

1Yes

Not Required None No compliance point.

2 Yes Not Required None No compliance point.

310/1/03--9/30/04


410/1/04--9/30/05


510/1/05--9/30/06

No Year 3 70% of Baseline First compliance point

Trash Reduction ScheduleTrash Reduction Schedule


Trash TMDL Approved

• Regional Board adopted on 9/19/01

• State Board approved on 2/19/02

• Office of Administrative Law on 7/16/02

• USEPA approved on 8/1/02


City of Arcadia et al. V. State Water Resources Control Board

• Coalition for Practical Regulation (CPR) cities file suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in July 2002

• Parties stipulate transfer to San Diego County Superior Court

• 12/23/03 San Diego County Superior Court Rules


Appeal

• Water Board and Cities appeal selected Superior Court Judgements

• Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate, rules on 1/26/06


Water Board Appeal

• Water Board failed to conduct assimilative capacity study

• Water Board failed to conduct cost/benefit or consider economic factors

• TMDL inappropriately applied to Estuary, when Estuary not listed on 303(d) list

• Water Board failed to comply with CEQA


Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Assimilative Capacity– Federal law does not require the regional board to

conduct assimilative capacity study before adopting the Trash TMDL.

– Evidence shows that because of the nature of trash, including styrofoam containers and other materials, that are undiluted by water, in contrast to chemical pollutants, and dangers to wildife of even small amounts of trash, an assimilative capacity study would be difficult to conduct and of little value.



• Water Board failed to conduct cost/benefit or consider economic factors– Water Boards sufficiently complied

• Discusses costs of collecting and disposing of trash

• Discusses costs of various types of compliance measures

• Includes capitol and O&M costs



• TMDL applied to L.A. River Estuary– Administrative record contains several pictures of

trash deposited in the Estuary during high flows, . . .– TMDL identification of the Estuary as impaired

could have been clearer, but we conclude it was sufficient to put all affected parties on notice, and does not meet the arbitrary and capricious standard.



• Water Board failed to comply with CEQA – Agree with Superior Court finding that the

regional board’s environmental checklist was deficient and there is sufficient evidence of a fair argument that the project may a have a significant effect on the environment, thus necessitating and EIR or functional equivalent.


Cities’ Appeal

• Zero target unattainable

• Failure to allocate load allocation

• Beneficial Uses

• Scientific Methodology

• Administrative Procedures – Un-listed waterbodies



• Zero target unattainable• “A zero limit on trash within the meaning of the

Trash TMDL is attainable because there are methods of deemed compliance with the limit.”



• Failure to assign a load allocation to nonpoint sources:– Agrees with Superior Court judgement that the

although the Clean Water Act focuses on both point and nonpoint sources . . . nothing in the Act demands that a state adopt a regulatory system for nonpoint sources.


Court of Appeal - Ruling• Beneficial Uses

– The Cities make no showing of prejudice. Swimming and bathing by the homeless are only two among numerous other beneficial uses that the Cities do not challenge and there is no suggestion that the numeric target of zero trash in the LA River would have been less stringent without consideration of the factors the Cities raise,



• Scientific Methodology• The Cities failed to establish the Water

Boards’ scientific data is inadequate or scientifically invalid. The Water Boards have not “failed to conduct on-going studies……and the record reveals studies relied upon by the Boards”.



• Administrative Procedures – Un-listed waterbodies

• The trash TMDL sufficiently notified affected parties of the inclusion of the Estuary as an impaired water body, and the load allocation for nonpoint sources is necessarily zero


A View of the River Without Trash

The End

Date post:	30-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	uriah-holmes
View:	28 times
Download:	0 times

Total Maximum Daily Loads for Trash

Documents