September 2014 A New Rainy Season Approaches

There has been much talk this year with regards to the drought in the Southwest, and especially here in Southern California. The grapevine says that the Pacific is warming up with the possible result that we may have an El Nino year...and yet I have heard contrary info as well. The answer is, I don't know and I wonder if anyone does.

When I teach classes, I often ask whether climate change/global warming is real, just to get a sense of the people. Without fail, I will get one or two class participants declaring that climate change is a grand hoax perpetrated by the left. I then ask where they get their information from...and without hesitation they gleefully admit getting all their information from Mr. Murdoch, and his staff of "Fair and Balanced" reporters.

With all the anomalous weather over the last few years including the warming of the oceans, I honestly don't know the answer, but what I do know is that I prefer clean air and water over the alternative. If there is the possibility that these climate issues are real, I would rather err on the proactive side in favor of clean air and water.

The noise machine has confused the issue to the point where people question whether climate change/global warming is real, which is not the question, the question is whether we (mankind) are directly contributing to it. Mr. Murdoch and his "Fair and Balanced" reporters have been paid to confuse us with the wrong issue. At some point, even in the backward looking States, the people will come to realize, after some significant unnatural-natural disaster, that their politicians have not been entirely honest, and that pandering to bias and ignorance has done more harm than good.

Who is paying for all the misinformation? Who gains by misinforming the public? Remember the misinformation campaigns of the 50's and 60,s which tried to convince us that cigarettes did not cause cancer, and 9 out 10 doctors preferred Camels. Who paid for those campaigns, and funded the politicians that kept us in the dark...follow the money?



 

Storm Water Thoughts...Caltrans changes SWPPP template again, and I like it.

Caltrans has been at it again updating the template, and I think they might have gotten it right this time. Originally the Tahoe SWPPP Template used an Access Data Base for input and that was a little challenging because it felt like a beta version of the template...but ultimately we got through it. Now the non-Tahoe SWPPP and WPCP Template have also been updated with an Access Data Base for filling in the template, and it worked. Well in fact it worked really well, and didn't feel like a temperamental beta version, but a smooth functioning application. The only problem so far, apparently the reviewer on a recent SWPPP project didn't get the memo on the new template and based his evaluation on one of the 2012 template. Now I know that this may sound like a complaint, but it is in fact an ironic moment, in that Caltrans is extremely prescriptive with their templates forbidding all comers from deviating from the boilerplate language in the template. In fact the reviewers are often less than helpful in interpreting the latest nuance and often wonder why anyone outside of Caltrans doesn't find their arcane interpretation of the moment "intuitively obvious". So, I am now waiting to see if this reviewer wishes to have me rewrite the SWPPP using a template from 2012, or do as I have learned to do prior to each new Caltrans project, go to their website.. anyone including Caltrans that needs the the link, here it is: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/

http://www.estormwater.com/inspector-general-0

 

Storm Water Thoughts...Are compromised inspection standards the new norm?

We spend a great deal of our time working with many different owners, general contractors and agencies performing storm water compliance inspections. The surprising thing is that there appears to be at least one organization out there that is promising to pencil whip QSP reports on a monthly basis, after providing the contractor with token training. The CGP clearly states that a QSP can delegate the inspection to a properly trained individual. I don't have a problem with this approach when we control the site, i.e. we are both employees of the general contractor. I don't understand how an outside QSP Inspector can claim to have control over a contractor if the site is not inspected weekly by the contract Inspector. As an organization, our approach is to not delegate to the contractor ensuring that there is a clear line between the Inspector and the contractor, i.e. the inspector inspects and the contractor implements the fixes identified by the inspector. To approach inspections in any other way, is to deviate from the original spirit of the regulation and potentially puts your LRP at risk. One of my inspectors came to me today and told me of a conservation with a contractor who had recently completed a project using one of these fly-by-night QSP services. The contractor stated that this QSP service had told him not to sweat the pencil whipped reports, as the State wasn't paying attention anyway.

Storm Water Thoughts 2014

Another year has passed and storm water compliance has been moving along with a few new things finally getting established or standardized. Truthfully not that much has changed, the prime directive is to keep crap out of the storm drain system...all else is in support of this objective.

As an example of CGP interpretation, any project that has a NOI for 3 consecutive months within the reporting year must submit an Annual Report. Interpretation any project that has been active for 2 months and 1 day will be required to submit an Annual Report. There still appears to be some confusion with who is authorized to act as the LRP or Authorized Signatory. It is fairly straight forward, if you have an ownership interest in the project you can be the LRP, if you have significant signatory authority for an organization you can be the LRP or Authorized Signatory. If you are the Construction Manager for the project you do not typically have the legal right to be either LRP or Authorized Signatory. A Contractor can be LRP if they have an ownership interest in the project, or they are authorized in writing by the Army Corp of Engineers for a specific Corp project.

SWPPP's

There appear to be a lot of small companies trying to get into the SWPPP writing business. There are also a good number civil engineering firms that try develop SWPPPs. For the most part I have found that these SWPPPs are less than adequate for several reasons. It appears that the people writing them have never been in field and wouldn't know BMP if it hit them sideways. The second is this concerted effort by certain firms to play with the Risk Analysis to ensure a project is listed as a Risk Level 1, gaming the system. It is my belief that they are doing their clients a great disservice by these practices, e.g. fudging the LS numbers on a significantly sloped site by just evaluating the pads, especially given that the project scope is major slope reinforcement because of slippage. Or tweaking the R Factor by not including all of the project phases, thereby reducing the Risk Level, at least until a COI is required for the next phase. There are times when this is appropriate, e.g. the final design or site disposition is not completed or certain...although a tentative schedule could be made. Or a design change or other significant addition or reduction in the projects scope/size.

Inspections

Over the past couple of years we have managed inspections on over a hundred projects, half of these Risk Level 2. As contract inspectors, we use only certified QSP's, and we have mentored many contractors to the point where they were able to take over the inspections once they had attained QSP credentials for themselves. Recently I have seen several cases where certain inspection services are bidding projects which allow their licensed QSPs to visit a site either every 2 weeks or once a month to pencil whip the inspection reports. Although in theory this practice is acceptable as the CGP allows that an unlicensed inspector who is adequately trained and under the direct supervision of a QSP may perform these tasks. The term adequately trained is far from clearly defined or enforced. I understand when a contractor employs a QSP, who in turn has the authority to train and direct others to perform inspections, BMP installation and maintenance. But I don't understand how an outside QSP has the authority to do anything except inspections given that those performing the tasks are not under their direct control. I believe that if contract inspectors are hired to perform inspections, that is what they should do and any deviation from this requirement is potentially compromising the integrity of the program. As an example, a contract QSP Inspector is tasked and is accountable for identifying potential issues on a project site and communicating those issues to the contractor. It is now clearly up to the contractor to implement the fixes required by the inspection report. But if you are delegating 3 out 4 inspections to a marginally trained contractor, who is to be held responsible for either the inspections or the fixes. I ask the question is, why would a QSP in good standing potentially risk their credibility and their license participating in this kind of charade. Perhaps that is because there has been less than significant over site or consequences for these behaviors, which is a shame because it compromises the integrity of the program overall.

Why we need to inspect...for a copy of the article "Inspector General"

email request to: info@calstormcompliance.com