Environmental Planning

Air Quality |  Water Quality Management Planning

   
Air Quality  

At this time, the Berkeley Charleston Dorchester region is in attainment with all air quality standards in the federal Clean Air Act and its amendments.

However, the three counties of the region have agreed to enter a statewide partnership to proactively address air quality issues before they become a problem.  In South Carolina, 45 of the 46 counties are participating in an Early Action Plan, in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) Bureau of Air Quality (BAQ). 

The Early Action Plan determines what actions must be taken at the state and local level to ensure compliance with recently adopted federal regulations regarding ozone emissions. 

Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester counties have no mandated requirements, but have been developing plans for voluntary activities and actions, to maintain current conditions and prepare them for any future problems which may emerge. 

In March 2004, final versions of each county Early Action Plan were sent to DHEC, to be incorporated into a statewide plan.  Below are the plans submitted by the three counties. 

For more information about the statewide Early Action Plan and other air quality issues, visit the Bureau of Air Quality’s website at http://www.scdhec.net/baq/eap.html.
   Department Staff


 

Vonie Gilreath

Senior Planner

 

Verneatha Spell-Profit

Planning Assistant

 

Andrea Kozloski

Communications Specialist

     

 

Water Quality Planning

The 1977 Federal Water Pollution Control Act established a comprehensive federal-state-local framework to prevent, reduce and eliminate water pollution.  Section 208 of the legislation, now known as the Clean Water Act, gave states the authority to appoint area wide planning agencies for water quality.  The Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments and four other COGs were designated to manage the needs of 20 mostly urban counties.  The SC Department of Health and Environmental Control was place in direct charge of the remaining 26 counties.  (Recently, DHEC has contracted with the Catawba Regional Planning Council to provide planning information for it's four fast-growing counties south of Charlotte, as well.)

The BCDCOG's role is to help carry out the goals of the Clean Water Act and integrate federal, state, and local interest.  This integration is achieved through the preparation of the 208 Water Quality Management Plan and the review of all permit applications concerning wastewater treatment.  Industries, developers and local governments must submit facilities plans and preliminary engineering information to the COG before altering discharges or installing sewer lines.  The COG's approval must be attained before DHEC will permit a project.  To be permitted, projects must meet state and federal guidelines and be in conformance with the Regional Water Quality Management Plan.
 
  Environmental Committee  

  • Mary Miller, Chair -- North Charleston Sewer District

  • Jeff Molinari - City of Goose Creek

  • Marty Healy - Lanxess

  • Caldwell Pinckney - Berkeley County Council

  • Tim Scott - Charleston County Council

  • Larry Hargett - Dorchester County Council

  • Dan Davis - Berkeley County

  • Lee Edwards - St. Andrews PSD

  • Rita Berry - Greater Summerville Dorchester Chamber of Commerce

  • Carl Beckmann - City of Folly Beach

  • Ralph James - Dorchester County

  • Elaine Morgan - Berkeley Chamber of Commerce

  • Mary Graham - Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce

  • Charles Ackerman - Town of Harleyville

  • Minnie Blackwell - City of Hanahan

  • Suzanne Piper - Charleston County

  • Harry Hallman - Town of Mount Pleasant
  Environmental Technical Advisory Committee  

  • Harmon Shade, Chair 

  • Colin Martin, Berkeley County Water and Sanitation Authority

  • Clay Duffie, Mt. Pleasant Waterworks

  • Jimmy Crepeau, Dorchester County Public Works

  • Sean Scheffer, BP

  • Joey Henderson, Santee Cooper

  • Andrew Fairey, Charleston CPW

  • Kendall Johnson, North Charleston Sewer District

  • Larry Arrington, Lanxess Corporation

  • Harvey Wilkins, Trident District EQC

  • Robert Wise, James Island PSD

  • Charlie Cuzzell, Summerville CPW

  • Priscilla Wendt, SC Department of Natural Resources

  • Duane Mummert, MeadWestvaco

  • Yvonne Michel, Sierra Club

  • Nancy Vinson, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League

  • George Gross, Isle of Palms Public Works  

  • Chris Stenger, Sun Chemical 

  • Eric Dziamniski, DAK Americas     
  Frequently Asked Questions of the 208 Water Quality Certification Process
  For Sewer Service		  
  Frequently Asked Questions of the 208 Water Quality Certification Process
  For Septic Tanks		  
 

Frequently Asked Questions of the 208 Water Quality Certification Process

The BCD Council of Governments (COG) is a cooperative organization of local governments in Berkeley, Charleston and Dorchester Counties.  Over the years, the COG has developed into a multifaceted service organization meeting the needs of local governments within the region.  The COG assists the three counties and their 26 municipalities in a variety of ways on behalf of its member governments.  The COG pursues state and federal funding for projects and programs in the areas of economic development, community development, transportation and general planning.  The COG also assists local governments in improving their services in areas such as planning, financial management, public works and general public administration.

  

The BCDCOG is the designated Water Quality Management Agency for the region.  As part of our responsibilities in ensuring that the goals of the Federal Clean Water Act are carried out, the BCDCOG reviews sewer projects for conformance to the Regional Water Quality Management Plan.  The BCDCOG carries out this review for SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).  Without certification from our agency, SCDHEC will not issue a permit for a sewer project.

  

The BCDCOG reviews projects that involve point source discharges into the region’s waters.  Extension of sewer lines falls within that scope, as well as new point source discharges, expansions, or changes to existing discharges.  

The BCDCOG also reviews subdivision of property that will be served by septic systems, with the exception of simple division of land (The simple division of a tract of land, ie. cutting one lot from an existing tract that has not been previously divided, will not be processed as a subdivision. Any subsequent division of that tract will require evaluation under the SC DHEC subdivision regulation. In applying this procedure, the effective date of the current subdivision regulation will be used.)

The BCDCOG does not review water line extensions or projects that fall under one of SCDHEC’s general permits.

  

For sewer line extensions:  The BCDCOG requires a completed certification form, downloadable from this site, and a location map indicating the where the lines are to be constructed.  A full set of engineering plans is not required. 

For all other projects:  The BCDCOG requires a PER (preliminary engineering report) for new, expanded, or changes in point source discharges. 

  

POTW stands for Public Operator of Treatment Works.  If the project involves sewer lines, the POTW contact on the form would be the contact to the public entity that is accepting your waste flow. 

  

The fee is required to offset the growing costs of maintaining the Regional Water Quality Management Program.  The charges vary depending on the type of request.

Collection Systems (including interceptors and pump stations):............................... $230

Residential Multiphase Projects

Phase 1 only: ....................................................................................................... $230

            All subsequent phases:.............................................................................. $175

Treatment Systems (including additions, modifications, and permit reissuances):.... $425

Other System Improvements (requests that do not fall into the other categories):. $325

  

If a plan amendment is not required, the review should not take longer than 5 working days.  It often takes less time. 

  

Verneatha Spell-Profit -  Planning Assistant
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments
1362 McMillan Ave., Suite 100
North Charleston, SC 29405
(843) 529-0400
 verneathas@bcdcog.com 

--or--

Ron Mitchum - Executive Director 
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments
1362 McMillan Ave., Suite 100
North Charleston, SC 29405
(843) 529-0400
ronm@bcdcog.com 

Some activities, such as new point source discharges, require plan amendments prior to receiving a 208 Water Quality Certification.  There are two types of amendments: minor and major. 

 Process for a Minor Plan Amendment: 

  1. Applicant submission of certification request and required supporting information (PER)
  2. Two Week Public Notice
  3. If significant public comments are received, COG may proceed with application as a Major Amendment
  4. Environmental Committee Recommendation
  5. Executive Committee approves amendment OR forwards recommendation to Full COG Board
  6. Full COG Board -- Amendment approved or disapproved

 Process for a Major Plan Amendment: 

  1. Applicant submission of certification request and required supporting information (PER)
  2. Two week public notice
  3. Public Hearing
  4. Technical Advisory Committee Recommendation
  5. Environmental Committee Recommendation
  6. Vote by Full COG Board -- Amendment approved or disapproved
  

Minor Amendments are required when:

  1. A new wastewater treatment facility requesting a permitted flow of less than 1.0 million gallons per day and defined to be a minor facility by EPA or DHEC;

  2. Improvements to an existing Wastewater Treatment Plant which are necessary to meet NPDES Permit Conditions requiring increased levels of treatment;

  3. An existing Wastewater Treatment Facility which would be expanded by less than 50% of the current permitted capacity, with respect to flow;

  4. An existing Wastewater Treatment Facility which would be "rerated" to handle a higher permitted flow, but would not result in an increased permitted UOD loading to the receiving stream;

  5. A proposed change in the current effluent disposal method, discharge point, or service area for an existing Wastewater Treatment Plant that would be consistent with the goals and other provisions of the BCDCOG 208 Plan.  Agreements between Designated Management Agencies involving these same considerations would also be considered as Minor Amendments.

  

Major Amendments are required when:

  1. Proposals for new, increased, or any other changes to existing permitted discharges into Water Quality Limited stream segments;

  2. Proposals involving the allocation of Total Maximum Daily Loadings for Water Quality Limited stream segments;

  3. Any new Wastewater Treatment Facility requesting a permitted flow of 1.0 million gallons per day, or more, or defined to be a major facility by EPA or DHEC;

  4. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities which will be expanded by at least 50% of the current permitted capacity, with respect to flow;

  5. An expansion of an existing Wastewater Treatment Facility which involves an increase in the presently permitted wasteload, expressed as Ultimate Oxygen Demand (UOD), which could be discharged to a receiving stream;

  6. Proposals effecting the Service Areas of two or more Designated Management Agencies which do not include appropriate agreements between those Management Agencies;

  7. Proposed projects which conflict with the goals of the BCDCOG 208 Water Quality Management Plan, or established 208 policy, such as:

  1. Goals/Objectives to improve or maintain the quality of surface and ground waters in the Region;

  2. The consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities into larger regional systems owned and operated by Designated 208 Management Agencies; and,

  3. To encourage that central sewer be used wherever possible, to provide an acceptable method of wastewater treatment and effluent disposal for projected residential, commercial, or industrial growth.

  

Generally the following information is required for all plan amendments to the Regional Water Quality Management Plan.  From time to time, a request is submitted that requires information that is not contained in the list, or items in the list are not relevant to the proposed project.  Prior to submission of the PER, it is recommended that the applicant contact the BCDCOG to verify what items will be required. 

Plan amendments may be accomplished with an approved preliminary engineering report, provided that the appropriate issues are addressed.  The report content will be the same for industrial and public wastewater treatment facilities except that industrial facilities need not address those issues pertaining to the COG’s 20-year planning goals.  For public wastewater treatment facilities and industrial facilities, with the preceding exception, the following issues must be addressed in the report:

  1. Justification for the plan amendment, such as;

    1. The construction of a new wastewater facility;

    2.  A change in the service area, method of treated effluent disposal, treated effluent discharge point, or increase in design capacity of an existing wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to meet revised 20-year needs; and,

    3. The execution of an interlocal agreement between two or more local governments, special purpose districts, or other sewer providers regarding sewer service areas

  2. The identification of the designated 20-year planning area.

  3. Projected land use patterns over the 20-year planning period for the designated wastewater facilities planning area.

  4. Population projections for the designated planning area over a 20-year period, and associated wastewater flow.

  5. An evaluation of feasible wastewater collection, treatment and/or effluent disposal alternatives which would be required to handle the projected wastewater flow to meet 20-year needs for the planning area.

  6. An environmental assessment and cost effective analysis of the most feasible wastewater collection, treatment, and/or effluent disposal alternatives.

  7. The identification of the selected wastewater collection, treatment, and/or effluent disposal alternatives identified in the above analysis.

  8. If the above analysis determines that the existing WWTF must be expanded, or that a new facility must be constructed to handle the projected 20-year design flow, the following items must be included in the PER/Facilities Plan Update:

    a.  Process design criteria, and typical process flow schematic for the selected treatment alternative.

    b.  Expected effluent quality; wasteload allocation and proposed NPDES permit limits, issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), for the selected treatment alternative.

    c.   For phased WWTF upgrades (or construction), the phase schedule, design flow, process design, expected effluent quality, and method of treated effluent disposal for each phase.

9.   The method of sludge disposal associated with the selected treatment alternative    
      must be identified; off site disposal shall require the approval of the disposal site 
      operator, (responsible local government and/or applicable sewer district).

 

  

Major Amendments would require a Public Meeting, advertised by a two-week notice in a newspaper distributed in the area affected by the proposed amendment, to receive public comments. The hearing record would remain open for ten working days following the Meeting to receive written comments on the proposed amendment. A responsiveness summary would then be prepared to address all comments received on the proposed amendment. The BCDCOG Environmental Committee will then be asked to review the proposal and make a recommendation to the BCDCOG regarding its adoption as an amendment to the 208 Plan.

The Council of Governments and the applicant for the Plan Amendment must agree to a time, date and place for the public meeting required to obtain public comments on the proposed amendment. The applicant is responsible for placing advertisements in local newspapers, arranging for the physical accommodations for the meeting, and, for developing a record of the proceedings of the meeting.  An Affidavit of Publication from the newspaper, and a responsiveness summary to the comments received at the Public Meeting, need to be provided to the Council of Governments before the requested amendment can be acted upon by the COG.

Public Meetings would not be mandatory for proposed Minor Amendments. Instead, a public notice would be sent to interested parties and advertised in a local newspaper, to receive comments on the proposed amendment. If no significant comments are received within two weeks of the date of the notice, the proposed amendment will be presented to the BCDCOG Environment Committee for consideration of approval.  If significant comments are received the COG could elect to treat the Proposal as a Major Amendment.

 

  

Frequently Asked Questions of the 208 Water Quality Certification Process for Septic Tanks
 

As of June 2001, no fee is charged for this review. 

However, a fee will be instituted in the future, based on the following fee schedule:

  • Small Subdivision: 2-4 Lots = no charge

  • Medium Subdivision: 5-10 Lots = $50

  • Large Subdivision: 11 or more Lots = $230

The review should not take longer than 5 working days.  It often takes less time. 

The BCDCOG reviews the proposed subdivision to determine whether the project is in conformance with the Regional Water Quality Management Plan.  Generally, the BCDCOG is reviewing whether public sewer is available to the site.  If public sewer is available to the site, the use of septic systems will not be permitted.  This policy is also backed up by state regulation 61-57: Development of Subdivision Water Supply and Sewage Treatment/Disposal Systems. 

The Regional Water Quality Management Plan specially states that:

 D-4. Septic And Individual Disposal Systems

Septic and individual disposal systems are an acceptable means of waste disposal assuming they are designed and maintained properly, and located on a suitable site.  Unfortunately, poorly located, designed or failed systems are believed to contribute greatly to nonpoint source pollution problems in many local drainage basins in this region. 

Where feasible, areas served by septic and individual disposal systems should be required to connect to a centralized treatment system, especially in those areas where septage is believed to contribute significantly to pollution problems. Such connections maximize the use of the system, its economical operation, and avoids surface and groundwater contamination resulting from septic and individual system failure.  Septic and individual disposal systems not required to obtain a NPDES Permit are the responsibility of the State Department of Health & Environmental Control rather than Designated Management Agencies.  

The BCDCOG recognizes DHEC regulations requiring individuals who commercially install septic systems to be licensed. The COG also recognizes the need for septage pumpers/haulers to have access to approved disposal sites and to provide for an adequate distribution of such sites among local treatment facilities.

 

Verneatha Spell-Profit -  Planning Assistant
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments
1362 McMillan Ave., Suite 100
North Charleston, SC 29405
(843) 529-0400
 verneathas@bcdcog.com 

--or--

Ron Mitchum - Executive Director 
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments
1362 McMillan Ave., Suite 100
North Charleston, SC 29405
(843) 529-0400
ronm@bcdcog.com 

The staff bases its decision on the information provided to them by the applicant and local service provider.  If there is an error with that information, BCDCOG staff will work with the applicant to correct the error.  If the information is correct, but the applicant disagrees with the staff decision, a plan determination will then be made by the Environmental Committee, which advises the BCDCOG.  The Environmental Committee will review the information and make its own plan determination.  This decision can then be appealed to our full COG board.  Any further appeals would be taken to court. 

 Appeal Process:

  1. Meeting with staff concerning question.
  2. Request appeal of staff decision to Environmental Committee.
  3. Request appeal of Environmental Committee to Full COG Board.
  4. Appeal decision of Full COG Board to the Circuit Court.
  
 
1362 McMillan Avenue, Suite 100  :  Charleston, SC 29405  (843) 529-0400  (843) 529-0305 Fax
 
home  :  contact us  :  site map  :  driving directions