Jump to content


Photo

NPDES Renewal associated with construction activities


5 replies to this topic

#1 picusld

picusld

    Principal in Charge

  • Senior Member
  • 302 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • Discipline:Civil

Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:57 PM

Although this may be a PA specific problem, others may have run into it, so I am hoping to get any feedback possible...

History

A 100 acre residential sub division was approved and fully permitted about 4 years ago. There were no detention facilities on site due to the site's proximity to the adjacent stream. About 65% of the subdivision has been constructed. The current NPDES permit is getting ready to expire.

Problem

Upon filing for a renewal we have been told that the remaining lots need to meet all current requirements which translates into either the addition of a regional basin (which we would lose lots) or the addition of individual lot rain gardens (which would drive up the home price).

It just doesn't seem right. Is this being enforced by the DEP correctly? Any thoughts?

#2 snickerd3

snickerd3

    Taking suggestions

  • Charter Member
  • 20,583 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:unpadded cell
  • Interests:spamming EB.com
  • Discipline:Sorely Lacking

Posted 07 April 2010 - 02:32 PM

In IL you would have to meet all the new rules too.



#3 Dleg

Dleg

    Veteran

  • EB Supporting Member
  • 14,700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:digester
  • Discipline:Enviro

Posted 08 April 2010 - 11:01 PM

Sounds to me like the review agency didn't properly permit it in the first place. Nationally, anyway, stormwater rules should have applied to a 100 acre site 4 years ago. Proximity to a stream would have no effect other than perhaps requiring even more stringent controls. The only time you would not worry about detention (overbank flood control, channel protection criteria) would be if you discharged to a tidal water or some other, very large body of water.

So my impression is that the project somehow slipped through, but the gig is up.... it has to comply now.

2cents.gif

#4 VTEnviro

VTEnviro

    His Memory Eternal

  • Retired ADMIN
  • 1,024,469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Frozen Plains of the North
  • Discipline:Sorely Lacking

Posted 09 April 2010 - 04:07 PM

If memory serves, the requirements from the NPDES CGP in 2003 were revised in 2008. If the rules have changed since you initially filed the permit, it does not relieve you from complying with current requirements because you need to renew now.

And just because the review may have goofed up when a permit was issued, you still may have to fix it when someone realizes it.

I had to jump through a shitload of hoops with the VT DEC after an innocuous comment about how the footing drains draining into a detention basin should be cleaned out. We had to unearth the fucking things and revise the drainage after the new guy reviewing the permits screamed at us about no ground flows to the basin.

#5 Road Guy

Road Guy

    35 years and a wakeup

  • Admin
  • 18,062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado
  • Interests:Yoga Pants, Ski!, SCUBA, Backpacking, Kicking Ass, etc
  • Discipline:Construction

Posted 09 April 2010 - 05:17 PM

usually you will have to update to current laws / regulations, may be different state to state, but thats what we have been doing down here in Georgia...

I know down here a neighborhood in the 100 acre range would be hard to get by permitting without any detention, unless the lot sizes are very large or something out of the ordinary.

have to take into the account of either losing a couple lots or paying a fine, and then losing lots....

#6 picusld

picusld

    Principal in Charge

  • Senior Member
  • 302 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • Discipline:Civil

Posted 22 April 2010 - 11:31 AM

QUOTE (Road Guy @ Apr 9 2010, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
usually you will have to update to current laws / regulations, may be different state to state, but thats what we have been doing down here in Georgia...

I know down here a neighborhood in the 100 acre range would be hard to get by permitting without any detention, unless the lot sizes are very large or something out of the ordinary.

have to take into the account of either losing a couple lots or paying a fine, and then losing lots....


Thanks for all the feedback. I was a bit off on my original permit dates closer to 2002 was the original permit date.

The to add a bit more information, the local Act 167 (stormwater ordinance for the river) guides that the site disharge at 100% with no detention. So the municipal engineer is requesting that we stay consistent with this. Additionally, the site is located in a historically karst area and sikholes have openned up already in other areas that don't have detention. Utilizing any type of individual on lot seepage pit or regional basin configuration would only promote additional sinkholes to be formed.

So I am left stuck between the DEP and Township...UGH




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

=