If you are under 5 acres you are basically under the old regulations…you are risk level 1. This waiver allows you work under regulations of old permit. However you are required to complete a Notice of Intent and Sediment Risk form through the State Water Board’s SMARTS system certifying that the construction activity will take place during a period when the value of the rainfall erosivity factor is less than 5. The only time you have to test is if you see a chemical spill and it rains and there is a discharge and then and only then you would have to water sample…where as in a level 2 or 3 you have to water sample no matter what when there is a discharge. You have to have min BMPs in place still.
In the old permit you had to make sure the NALS weren’t high when you tested but now in the new permit you are actually given limitations that you have to work with for both pH and turbidity. (see lower slide for limitations)
A judge in Sacramento Superior Court has invalidated the NELs contained in the Construction General Permit for Storm Water Runoff. The Court concluded that the NELs are invalid and unenforceable unless and until the State Water Resources Control Board can p;roduce data that shows that currect technology will actually achieve the NELs.
Despite the invalidation of the NELs the Construction General Permit requirements ARE STILL IN PLACE FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE. This applies to on going projects as well as those permits that will be issued in the near future.
Risk level 1 is basically the old permit with the new min requirements (trash cans and things like that). Risk level 2 is the same as risk level one with additional testing….is you have non storm water quarterly inspections (inspections for spills/leaks…basically a normal inspections but weather doesn’t matter) and it has to be labeled a “quarterly non storm water inspection” which is part of the annual report. Risk level 3 same inspections as level 2 but you also have to inspect receiving waters (test for pH and turbidity).
Now every single jobsite has to have perimeter control… sediment and erosion controls. Another requirement is that trash cans need to be covered daily. All secondary containment units need to be covered daily even if not in use. All active stockpiles can remain uncovered but once they go in inactive they must be covered or stabilized by the 15 th day.
A contractor should know what type of soil there is on the project. Based on that type of soil you adjust your BMPs. For example if a project is majority sandy loom….then you would be more sediment control conscious. If you had clay you would focus more on turbidity control, and tracking becomes more of an issue because everything sticks.
Risk level 1 dischargers are not subject a numeric effluent std. Risk level 2 are subject to a pH NAL of 6.5 -8.5 and a turbidity NAL of 250. Risk level 3 have same pH NALs and turbidity NALs as risk level 2 and in addition Risk level 3 dischargers are subject to a pH NEL of 6.0-9.0 and a turbidity NEL of 500 NTUs.
Risk level 3 dischargers with a total project related ground disturbance exceeding 30 acres shall conduct bioassessment monitoring and include the collection and reporting specified in stream biological data and physical habitat and use the bioassessment sample collection and quality assurance & quality control protocols developed by SWAMP. Risk level 3 qualifying for bioassessment where construciton commences out of an index period for the site location shall receive regional board approval for sampling exception, conduct bioassessment monitoring, include the collection and reporting of specified instream biological date and physical habitat and use the bioassessment sample collection and QA/QC protocols developed by SWAMP.
New development and redevelopment have almost always resulted in permanent post construction water quality impacts because more precipitation ends up as run off and less precipitation is infiltrated, so the new General permit requires SWPPP to include a description of all post construction BMPS on site and a maintenance schedule.
REAPs are for risk level 2 and 3 only. They are triggered by a forecast of 50% chance of rain on NOA even if it doesn't rain you have to have a REAP. A REAP is a plan how you will attack this rain event…it tells you what BMPS you will have on site and who is the contact in the event of a discharge and if there is an issue who will fix it and what work is done in that time frame so if you had planned to excavate or work with concrete or other chemicals those need to be minimized or canceled all together. Every rain event requires there to be a REAP done…meaning that the work I’m doing changes so my REAP would be modified to reflect that.
Your annual report describes the onsite activity. It tell the Water Board what and if there were any issues and what you did to resolve them. What inspections and monitoring was done , water sampling , discharges, did you list all summary of site inspections…
QSP….Qualified SWPPP practitioner and they need to have a CISEC or CESSWI (both are State certifications) certification. This individual is in charge of making sure that the site is in compliance per the on site SWPPP plan. QSD: is a qualified SWPPP developer. They are in charge of developing and amending the SWPPP plan.
Powerline across or pipe cable being laid in a trench….
General Water Permit - Ed Puchi
A WARNING TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: ACL’s ARE ON THE RISE AND YOUR COMPANY MAY BE EXPOSED.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit For Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities <ul><ul><li>The order was adopted on September 2, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The order became effective July 1, 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Order expires on September 2, 2014 </li></ul></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Rainfall Erosivity Waiver: this option allows a small construction sites (>1 and <5 acres) to self-certify if the rainfall erosivity value (R value) for their site’s location and time frame compute to be less than or equal to 5. </li></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Technology- Based Numeric Action Levels(applies to Risk Level 2 and 3) </li></ul><ul><li>This General Permit includes NALs </li></ul><ul><li>(numeric action level) for pH and turbidity. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Turbidity NAL = 250 NTU </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ph NAL = 6.5-8.5 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NAL Exceedance Report must be submitted via SMARTS no later than 5 days after rain event for Risk 3 and 10 days for Risk 2 if requested by Regional Board. </li></ul>
NALs <ul><li>Numeric Action Levels are essentially numeric benchmark values for certain parameters that is exceeded in effluent sampling trigger the discharger to take action. </li></ul><ul><li>Primary purpose of NALs is to assist dischargers in evaluating the effectiveness of their on-site measures. </li></ul><ul><li>Another purpose of NALs is to provide information regarding construction activities and water quality impacts. This data will provide the State and Regional Water Boards with info about levels and types of pollutants present in runoff and how effective the discharger’s BMP’s are at reducing pollutants in effluent. </li></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Technology-Based Numeric Effluent Limitations: Risk Level 3 Only. this General Permit contains daily average NELs (Numeric Effluent Limitation) for pH during any construction phase where there is a high risk of ph discharge and daily average NELs turbidity for all discharges in Risk Level 3 . </li></ul><ul><li>ph NEL = 6.0-9.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Turbidity NEL = 500 NTU </li></ul><ul><li>For an NEL Exceedance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NEL violation report must be submitted within 24 hours via SMARTS no later than 5 days after rain event, and includes sampling results, description of onsite BMPs and corrective actions taken. </li></ul></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Risk-Based Permitting Approach: This General Permit establishes three levels of risk possible for a construction site. </li></ul><ul><li>Risk is calculated in two parts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1) Project sediment Risk (the relative amount of sediment that can be discharged given project and location details) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2) Receiving Water Risk (the risk sediment discharges pose to the receiving water) </li></ul></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Minimum Requirements Specified: General Permit imposes more minimum BMPs (Best Management Practices) and requirements that were previously only required as elements of SWPPP or were suggested by guidance. </li></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Project Site Soil Characteristics Monitoring and Reporting: </li></ul><ul><li>This provides the option for dischargers to monitor and report the soil characteristics at their project location. </li></ul><ul><li>The primary purpose of this requirement is to provide better risk determination and eventually better program evaluation. </li></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Effluent Monitoring and Reporting: This General Permit requires effluent monitoring and reporting for pH and turbidity in storm water discharges. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine compliance with the NELs and evaluate whether NALs included in this General Permit are exceeded. </li></ul><ul><li>Required for ph and Turbidity in storm water discharges </li></ul><ul><li>Applies to Risk Level 2 and 3 Sites </li></ul><ul><li>A minimum 3 samples per day must be collected from discharges subsequent to a qualifying rain event (events that produces ½” inches of rain or more within 48 hours). </li></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Receiving Water Monitoring and Reporting: </li></ul><ul><li>This General Permit requires some Risk Level 3 (over 30 acres) dischargers to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>monitor receiving waters (NEL exceedance and direct discharge to receiving waters) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and conduct bioassessments (analyze aquatic life present in sample). </li></ul></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Post Construction Storm Water Performance Standards: This General Permit specifies runoff reduction requirements for all sites not covered by a Phase I or Phase II MS4 NPDES permit, to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate post-construction storm water runoff impacts. </li></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Rain Event Action Plan: This General Permit requires certain sites to develop and implement a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) that must be designed to protect all exposed portions of the site within 48 hours prior to any likely (> 50%) precipitation event. </li></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Annual Reporting: Due Sept 1 of Each Year. </li></ul><ul><li>General Permit requires all projects that are enrolled for more than one continuous three-month period to submit information </li></ul><ul><li>Required to annually certify that site is in compliance with these requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>The primary purpose of this requirement is to provide information needed for overall program evaluation and public information. </li></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Certification/Training Requirements for Key Project Personnel: </li></ul><ul><li>General Permit requires that key personnel(e.g., SWPPP preparers, inspectors, etc.) have specific training or certifications to ensure their specifications that will comply with General Permit Requirements. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>QSP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>QSD </li></ul></ul>
Summary of Significant Changes in This General Permit <ul><li>Linear Underground/Overhead Projects: General Permit includes requirements for all Linear Underground/Overhead Projects (LUPs). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on the location and complexity of the project areas, LUPs are separated into project types. (Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3) </li></ul></ul>
The California Department of Transportation Confusion Hill Bypass Project
● Project of the Year Award from California Transportation Association. ● A model project that is critical to the North Coast Region’s infrastructure and economy. Importance of the Project:
Features Which Avoided Permitted Impacts: Most permitted in-stream disturbance was avoided. The Certification authorized 50 temporary piles in the live stream, over 4,200 cubic yards of concrete , and no pile driving. As implemented, only six piles were of installed and approximately 12 cubic yards of concrete .
Features Which Avoided Permitted Impacts: ● A lower-level deck was not required, but was installed for additional protection. ● Access roads to the South Bridge were paved for additional protection, although not required. ● Refueling equipment was transported to the peninsula to avoid an equipment crossing. ● Fewer river crossings took place compared to what was permitted.
← Features Which Avoided Permitted Impacts: Major North Bridge access roads were avoided. The Certification allowed low-crossing access roads to be installed 10 feet above the water and ramps built from on-site gravel 10 feet high and 25 feet wide, requiring over 1,100 cubic yards of material. This change allowed 25 trees and riparian habitat to be preserved.
Features Which Avoided Permitted Impacts: Several change orders were added for SWPPP protection, costing an additional $1.05 million (this does not include contractor-shared costs or supervision, i.e., biological monitors, SWPPP managers, etc.).
Timeline <ul><li>MCM bid the project in April 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>MCM is awarded project in May 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>MCM begins construction in June 2006. </li></ul>
TIMELINE <ul><li>MCM completed the Confusion Hill project and had the Opening Ceremony on June 26, 2009. </li></ul><ul><li>MCM received the ACL on August 17, 2009 for 295 violations that took place the first few months of the project (2006) for $1.5 million dollars. (Max penalty $2.9 million) </li></ul>
TIMELINE <ul><li>Water Board Hearing was set to be held March 24, 2011 then postponed to June 23, 2011 (22 months after ACL was issued) to allow the State Water Board Prosecution Team more time to prepare. </li></ul><ul><li>Today: 7 months after the hearing we have yet to have a determination on the ACL. </li></ul>
Substantial Evidence Rule: “ There must be substantial evidence to support a finding of responsibility for each party named. This means credible and reasonable evidence which indicates the named party has responsibility.” ( Order No. WQ 85-7 (Exxon, Co., U.S.A .) (emphasis added).)
Section 401 Application : “Project specifications developed for this project will prohibit any direct discharges to the SFER and/or its tributaries for construction de-watering activities. It is proposed to utilize portions of the gravel bar for construction de-watering during the dry season. Temporary sedimentation basins would be located a minimum of 100 feet from the live stream channel .” (Emphasis added.) Location of the Dewatering Basin
Staff’s Deposition Testimony Q. And you, also, mentioned that the Regional Board, in all likelihood, have approved shorter distances than 100 feet in other situations? A. Yes. Q. Knowing that there's nothing special about the 100 foot distance here, and also knowing that the Board has probably accepted less than 100 feet in other situations, if, back at the time of the Application, Caltrans would have said: "The furthest we could put away a basin within the gravel bar in the work area is 70 feet," would there be any reason, from your standpoint, to disapprove that request? A. No. (Deposition of Dean Prat, App. 108, p. 54.) Location of the Dewatering Basin
ACL <ul><li>Alleged Turbid Discharges to the River </li></ul>
Q. How do you know that there's petroleum product on those rocks? A. They are visually stained, and one of the plastic bags appears pink which would lead me to believe it could be red diesel. It could be hydraulic fluid. I don't know exactly what it is… Q. It could be a pink bag. A. It could be. * * * Q. Do you know where these rocks came from? A. I do not off the top of my head, no. Q. Do you know when they were collected? A. No. Q. Do you know where this picture was taken? A. No, although I will repeat that looking in the photographic record could provide context as to where the photo was taken and the time that the photo was taken. (Deposition of Kason Grady, App. 104, p. 82-83.) Ambiguous Photographs August 29, 2006 Allegation (MCM App. 16.)
Q. Do you know what type of fluid it is that's on these rocks? A. I do not. Q. Do you know when whatever type of fluid it was was discharged? A. When? Q. When. A. Well, no. I could only venture a guess. Q. Do you know what type of vehicle, if any, created the discharge? A. I do not. Q. Other than this photograph, do you have any other evidence supporting this violation on this date? A. No. (Deposition of Kason Grady, App. 104, p. 84-85.) Ambiguous Photographs September 9, 2006 Allegation (MCM App. 17.)
Full containment is difficult and presents a threat to worker safety . Welds occur quickly, and produce very little excess material. Project Welding and Cutting
Custom and practice does not require containment. No specific requirement for spark/slag containment exists in the Certification, in the A pplication, or in Caltrans’ standard BMPs. Custom and Practice
Staff’s Deposition Testimony Q. Do you have any information that introducing welding slag into a water body would create an adverse impact on water quality in any way? A. Well, at a minimum, it would be considered sediment once it's there. Q. Any toxic effects that you're aware of? A. No. Q. Any impacts to fish or wildlife that you're aware of? A. Other than the impacts that sediment would have, no. (Deposition of Kason Grady, App. 104, p. 139.) Toxicity
On request, workers used five-gallon buckets and blankets, where possible. Efforts to Contain
ACL <ul><li>Alleged Rubbish and Debris Discharges </li></ul>
● Full time cleaning laborer was hired by MCM. ● Trash receptacles all over work area. ● Extra precautions taken on trestle deck, including side netting. ● Work area kept extraordinarily clean. But is the deck water tight???? Rubbish and Trash BMPs
ACL <ul><li>Our Favorite Example of What The Water Board Considers “substantial and Credible Evidence” to warrant a $10,000 penalty. </li></ul>