For years Richland County had virtually no system in place to prevent pollution in storm water runoff from entering local lakes, creeks, and rivers.

For years Richland County had virtually no system in place to prevent pollution in storm water runoff from entering local lakes, creeks, and rivers. Heavy rains can wash herbicides from farmlands, hazardous materials from construction sites and factories, automobile oil, curbside garbage and all manner of other pollutants into the gutters, then down into the bodies of water the county’s citizens use for fishing, swimming, and other recreational activities. Under pressure from a citizen lawsuit, DHEC fined the county over $800,000 for negligence back in April 2006, which garnered a brief flicker of media attention before the issue disappeared back into the murk of interdepartmental red tape and administrative jargon.

City Paper dug through documents to determine what exactly happened to bring about the citizen suit and the resulting fine and also followed up with both DHEC and Richland County to check their progress in implementing a viable storm water management program. The Department of Environmental Health and Control issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to Richland County in March of 2000, which allowed for the discharge of storm water from its municipal storm water system (a.k.a. the MS4 system) to all receiving waters— creeks, lakes, and rivers— in the county. The NPDES permit, to have been renewed in 2005, specified that Richland County was to “effectively regulate” the pollutants of the storm water system they owned and operated. The county was also expected to develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) to prevent, regulate, and/or remove pollution from storm water and to maintain the overall quality of the water discharged by their MS4 system. The program has been funded since 2000 through a drainage tax levied on Richland County property owners. In June 2001, Ogden Environmental and Engineering Services prepared a SWMP for Richland County, which was submitted to DHEC.

But Richland County didn’t fix the pollution problems or fully implement the SWMP.

In December of 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DHEC audited the Storm Water Management Division of Richland County. The audit found that the county had no scheduled inspection and maintenance program for storm water control structures, such as drainage ditches and detention ponds; no procedures in place to conduct inspections of high-risk facilities, like factories and commercial farms that use chemicals and pesticides; and no system to control bacteria and chemical runoff from residential areas, such as automobile oil and sludge from trash dumpsters.

This polluted storm water, also called “nonpointsource pollution,” is one of the leading causes of water pollution in South Carolina and can, among other things, lead to unnaturally large algae blooms, which deplete oxygen levels in the water and harm wildlife. Department of Environmental Health and Control officials rejected the county’s application for permit renewal in October of 2004 and also rejected a revised permit renewal application in January of 2005. At a quarterly meeting of S.C. Storm Water Managers in March of 2005, then-Storm Water Manager of Richland County, Rocky Archer, presented a lecture entitled, “Surviving and Thriving with EPA Audits.” In the lecture Archer stated that an inventory of countywide storm drainage systems was 90 percent complete and that an inspection schedule for structural controls was in progress.

They also amended the county’s Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance to be consistent with state and federal regulations. According to notes from the lecture, Archer reiterated that the “key focus for Stormwater [sic] Management is to identify and evaluate the sites within the county that handle, store, and treat or dispose of municipal waste to determine the risks presented to waters-of-the-state. ” He also said the county had deputized personnel to enforce the ordinance provisions for storm water investigation, management and control. “Highrisk industrial facilities in Richland County have been identified and mapped in a GIS database. […] Some inspections have been performed.”

But the controls the county had in place weren’t enough. The initial NPDES permit expired in April 2005. Since DHEC continued to reject their subsequent applications due to inadequate pollution controls, the county operated for over a year without a permit. In July of 2005, DHEC officials met with agents of Richland County to discuss the violations found in the EPA’s storm water audit. At that time, DHEC did not impose a penalty on the county for those violations. Instead, the county agreed to submit a “Corrective Action Plan,” which consists of an itemized list of problems in storm water management and the deadlines by which those problems would be brought up to standard (the same problems that should have been fixed under the original NPDES permit from 2000). The two agencies left it at that.

Nine months later, USC law student Patti McKenzie, had had enough. On April 10, 2006 McKenzie and her attorney, Eugene McCall, exercising the rights entitled to citizens under the Federal Clean Water Act, sent a letter to state Attorney General Henry McMaster stating McKenzie’s intention to file a citizen suit against both DHEC and Richland County because of their negligence. Copies of the letter were also sent to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, DHEC Commissioner Earl Hunter, and J. Milton Pope, the interim administrator of Richland County.

The letter of intent to sue prompted DHEC to impose a harsher penalty against Richland County, and they fined the county $830,549. The fine could have been as much as $1,000,000, but DHEC reduced the amount.

Columbia City Paper asked DHEC spokesman Thom Berry why the agency didn’t fine the county the full amount.

“…[T]he penalty amount and payment process were reached through negotiation with Richland County,” he said. “While we can require the penalty to be paid within a shorter amount of time, we also recognize the financial hardship that can cause, even for a government entity. We could set penalties for violating certain guideposts or benchmarks. We’ll be watching Richland County to ensure they do comply with the law.”

Berry also said DHEC wouldn’t get the penalty money and that it would go into the state’s general fund. “Since the violation falls under the state’s Pollution Control Act, half of the penalty goes to the county or municipality where the violation occurred. In this case, Richland County will get half of the penalty amount returned. That process was set up in the legislation.”

The fine garnered brief media attention in News.

Now, almost six months later, has Richland County started the process to actually fix the storm water runoff problem?

On Sept. 8, City Paper sent a detailed information request to DHEC, requesting confirmation that Richland County had completed each benchmark by the deadlines provided in the Corrective Action Plan.

On Sept. 15, after receiving no response from DHEC, City Paper sent a follow up e-mail. “[ I ] haven’t heard from the folks in Bureau of Water that were looking over the other questions you had that I couldn’t answer earlier,” a DHEC spokesman said.

“Hang in there… we’ll get ‘em.”

As of press time, DHEC has not responded. DHEC’s media relations department is top notch and while they have been as helpful as circumstances allow, the fact that DHEC— the very department that is supposed to police Richland County’s storm water correction procedures— hasn’t been able to provide information from within its own department, begs the question: have they even enforced the deadlines in the Corrective Action Plan?

According to Stephany Snowden, a spokeswoman for Richland County, the county has taken the initiative on its own, stating, “Richland County has been proactive in ensuring that the permit and CAP [Corrective Action Plan] requirements are being met.”

The initial benchmarks within the CAP were:

1. Richland County was to coordinate with the Dept. of Transportation to improve road drainage by March 31, 2006.

2. The county was to meet with the Clemson Extension Service to synchronize efforts to implement and improve the MS4 Pesticide, Herbicide, and Fertilizer program by March 31, 2006.

3. The county was to develop standard operating procedures and submit them to DHEC by April 30, 2006.

“ R i c h - land County met with SCDoT officials along with their NPDES Permit consultant and coordinated efforts on Road Runoff Management Program (RRMP) by the above mentioned deadline date,”

S n o w d e n confirmed to City Paper via email on October 4. S n o w d e n also confirmed that the other benchmarks listed above had been met to the detail within every deadline set by DHEC.

It appears that Richland County is making a concerted effort to improve their storm water management program. DHEC issued the county a new 5-year cycle NPDES permit on September 11, 2006, which is effective through September 10, 2011.

DHEC stated to WLTX on May 6, that the overall water quality in Richland County did not suffer from the storm water problem. City Paper plans to conduct tests of the water through a private company to guage pollution levels in the waters of Richland County. Stay tuned.

AUDIT TIMELINE March 2000 - DHEC issues Richland County a NPDES permit (renewable in 2005) June 2001- Storm Water Management Program drafted for Richland County December 2003 - EPA and DHEC audit Richland County October 2004 - DHEC rejects Richland County NPDES permit renewal January 2005 - DHEC rejects revised Richland County NPDES renewal application March 2005 - Richland County storm water manager briefs department on ways to improve system. April 2005 - Original NPDES permit expires. Richland County storm water system is operating without a permit. July 2005 - DHEC meets with Richland County and imposes a “Corrective Action Plan” in lieu of leveling a fine against the county. April 2006 - Patti McKenzie threatens to sue DHEC and Richland County for negligence under the Federal Clean Water Act. April/May 2006 - DHEC, under pressure from McKenzie, fines Richland County $800,000. May thru September 2006 – Richland County takes steps to improve pollution controls September 2006- DHEC issues Richland County a new NPDES permit effective through 2011

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.25

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

---